Why all the hate on dual wielding?

[Knaight]

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

Sometimes the fun comes from having a modicum of realism, at least in terms of clearly inferior options actually being inferior. As just one example: Everyone being just as good at fighting unarmed as with a weapon takes away all the scenarios where only one person having a weapon matters. The trope of someone held at gunpoint (with the gun replaced by a bow or crossbow), of a master swordsman rushed while they're unarmed, of an expert having to sneak around until they get their hands on a weapon and bring in brute force, all of those are gone. The same thing can apply to a lesser extent to something like dual wielding compared to more suitable battlefield weapons.

[Boci]

Sometimes the fun comes from having a modicum of realism, at least in terms of clearly inferior options actually being inferior. As just one example: Everyone being just as good at fighting unarmed as with a weapon takes away all the scenarios where only one person having a weapon matters. The trope of someone held at gunpoint (with the gun replaced by a bow or crossbow), of a master swordsman rushed while they're unarmed, of an expert having to sneak around until they get their hands on a weapon and bring in brute force, all of those are gone. The same thing can apply to a lesser extent to something like dual wielding compared to more suitable battlefield weapons.

Not really. How good you fight unarmed is relevant to any fighter, because you may find yourself without a weapon. By contrast, how well you fight with two weapons is pretty irrelevant to a character who has chosen to wield a greatsword or glaive. It's not to a lesser extent, its completely different, because you will not be in a situation where you will be fighting with two weapons, barring incredibly rare contrivances.

[Kryx]

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.

That feat's terribleness is one of the main reasons TWF is bad.

GWM and PAM are both worth about twice the value of an ASI. Dual Wielder giving +1 AC and +1 damage is is identical to the +2 Dex from an ASI, but without the +1 to hit, +1 to initiative, +1 Dex save, +1 Acrobatics, +1 Sleight of Hand, +1 Stealth, etc, etc, etc. Dual Wielder is an awful feat.

[Easy_Lee]

"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.

This is my issue. I actually quite like dual wielding. But for me, if I'm going to build a character, I want to be good at something. Not the best, just good at something.

There's no way (that I know of) to legally build a TWF character without another weapon being superior for that character. Either you need too much feat investment and it isn't worth the lost options or your damage is inferior.

[jas61292]

That feat's terribleness is one of the main reasons TWF is bad.

GWM and PAM are both worth about twice the value of an ASI. Dual Wielder giving +1 AC and +1 damage is is identical to the +2 Dex from an ASI, but without the +1 to hit, +1 to initiative, +1 Dex save, +1 Acrobatics, +1 Sleight of Hand, +1 Stealth, etc, etc, etc. Dual Wielder is an awful feat.

Dual Wielder is not horrible, but only because it is useful for a Str based TWF or a Dex based one that has already maxed out Dex. That said, it is on the weaker side. Add that to other weapon styles having horribly overpowered feats like GWM and PAM, and TWF seems even worse in comparison.

That said, I think one little thing that really takes viability away from TWF is that the fighting style is only available to Fighters and Rangers. TWF thrives when it gets bonus damage on its attack, something fighters mostly lack, and Rangers mainly get thorough Hunter's Mark, which competes for the bonus action. Looking just at class features, Paladins and Barbarians would probably make the best use of TWF, but the former can't pick it, and the later doesn't get fighting styles. A Paladins improved divine smite granting a full extra die to every attack is a huge boost for TWF at a level that the style fades into irrelevance on a fighter. And extra damage from a barbarian rage could potentially push its damage to the top of the heap for that class. But alas, those only work if you get your ability mod to damage, which requires a fighter or ranger dip. Not that such a thing is terrible, but it pushes back the level it becomes very effective, just to hit a level that the terribly designed feats mentioned previously get you to without any effort.

[Rogerdodger557]

"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.

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

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

[Aett_Thorn]

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

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

I am betting that even most people on this board who classify it as "don't touch" actually do make characters with that playstyle. However, this board really does focus on optimization to a ridiculous degree. But in real games, you probably won't find that same level of optimiztion in favor of characters that are fun.

[Boci]

I agree with that. It is a strong word. It's just that almost every post about classes with fighting styles that has TWF classifies it as don't touch, which I just don't like. Especially since fighters get the most attacks per round, it seems odd that people have a distaste for a method that increases the attacks per round.

That's exactly why its considered suboptimal. When you get a lot of attacks, an extra attack isn't as valuable. Fighters get the least out of two-weapon fighting because they have so many attacks. A rogue by contrast, the best class for two-weapon fighting, gets 100% extra attacks from it. Fighter gets increasingly few as their level increases.

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

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

[Tanarii]

Because you can't TWF and use War Magic at the same time.
Dueling or Protection (ie S&B) is also somewhat sub-par in that it requires a Feat investment (War Caster), unless you have access to the SCAG cantrips.

Edit: If you mean other people are hating on your decision to TWF instead of using War Magic, that's their problem. Not yours.

[Kryx]

Dual Wielder is not horrible, but only because it is useful for a Str based TWF or a Dex based one that has already maxed out Dex.

I outlined how +2 Dex ASI is better in every factor except "you can draw two weapons" which is often and should be hand waived by GMs. A feat that is worse than an ASI is a bad feat irregardless of the overpowered nature of GWM and PAM (both are incredibly OP, but those are the competing styles). However even fixing GWM and PAM to not be incredibly OP still has TWF be very suboptimal as Dual Wielder is worse than an ASI and the myriad of other reasons mentioned in this thread (Bonus action, OAs, Magic Items, etc)

[Specter]

That feat's terribleness is one of the main reasons TWF is bad.

GWM and PAM are both worth about twice the value of an ASI. Dual Wielder giving +1 AC and +1 damage is is identical to the +2 Dex from an ASI, but without the +1 to hit, +1 to initiative, +1 Dex save, +1 Acrobatics, +1 Sleight of Hand, +1 Stealth, etc, etc, etc. Dual Wielder is an awful feat.

1) Assuming your DEX is maxed or you started as a V. Human, why would that matter?

2) I'm not saying it's a great feat, but if you're accounting for efficiency you have to consider the +1AC too.

[Easy_Lee]

1) Assuming your DEX is maxed or you started as a V. Human, why would that matter?

It's a bad option because other options are better. Even for a TWF character, there are quite a few feats more useful than Dual Wielder.

[GlenSmash!]

1) Assuming your DEX is maxed or you started as a V. Human, why would that matter?

Or a Strength Dual Wielder in Heavy Armor. I'm also not saying it's a good feat. It's not. Polearm Master outstrips it by miles.

[Rogerdodger557]

It's a bad option because other options are better. Even for a TWF character, there are quite a few feats more useful than Dual Wielder.

Dual Wielder is literally the only way to dual wield non-light weapons.

[Boci]

Dual Wielder is literally the only way to dual wield non-light weapons.

Yeah, but that doesn't make it good. Upgrading from shortsword or scimitars to rapier or longsword gives +1 to average damage. Its important for character aesthetic, less so mechanics-wise.

[Tanarii]

Dual Wielder is literally the only way to dual wield non-light weapons.

Yeah. As far as I can see, it's not really intended for Dex dual-wielding. It's intended for Str dual-wielding.

Dual-wielding rapiers doesn't exist. DOES NOT EXIST YOU HEAR ME!

[GlenSmash!]

Dual Wielder is literally the only way to dual wield non-light weapons.

But non-light weapons are just not that much better than the light ones. Rapiers only do on average 1 more point of damage per hit than shortswords/scimitars. Likewise Longswords/Warhammers/Battleaxes and Handaxes, with handaxes have the added beneft of being able to throw them.

[Easy_Lee]

But non-light weapons are just not that much better than the light ones. Rapiers only do on average 1 more point of damage per hit than shortswords/scimitars. Likewise Longswords/Warhammers/Battleaxes and Handaxes, with handaxes have the added beneft of being able to throw them.

Exactly right. And on the only class that might actually TWF effectively, a rogue, I'd take shortsword / dagger over two rapiers any day. Dealing 3 more damage per attack action, when I don't bonus action something else, doesn't compare to also having a ranged attack. Then I'd spend the feat on Alert, skulker, or something that got me more opportunity attacks.

[Rogerdodger557]

STR: 21(+5)

Yeah. As far as I can see, it's not really intended for Dex dual-wielding. It's intended for Str dual-wielding.

Dual-wielding rapiers doesn't exist. DOES NOT EXIST YOU HEAR ME!

I am in fact a STR based dual wielder

[MeeposFire]

The bonus action part is a major flaw that really needs to be removed. It makes it the only fighting style that does not work with a bunch of mechanics in the game whereas other styes all work fine.

One great example is in the class involved here as it is the ONLY fighting style that cannot be used at all with war magic which is one of the cool abilities of the EK. Some need feats like warcaster to make them work more efficiently (sword and board) but it does work in general with the ability TWF does not.

I use some methods to get around these issues though I am still working on the whole thing.

1. Two weapon fighting no longer requires an additional action and does not require the attack action to use though it does require that you make a weapon attack on your turn as an action for you to use it.

2. You get an object interaction for every attack you can make with an attack action and if you are drawing a weapon with it you can draw a weapon in each hand as the same object interaction.

3. Two weapon fighting style grants you the ability to use larger weapons.

4. When a character gains the extra attack ability from any class they get to add their attribute bonus to their off hand damage.

5. The dual wielder feat provides an AC bonus, an ability to make an extra attack with an off hand as a bonus action, and you can make one off hand attack with your main weapon attack on an opportunity attack (I do not allow tunnel fighter at this time).


Part one makes TWF more easy to use in the game and less annoying. Now it works with war margic and things like the new blade bard ability that makes an attack that is not an attack action.

Part 2 fixes the issue with drawing two weapons without a feat (that should not be required) and allows throwing weapon characters to actually work.

Part 3 gives the TWF style a bonus more in line with other weapon fighting styles. Allowing for larger weapons to be used grants a damage bonus of slightly more than +1 damage an attack (remember you need to include crits and an increased die size changes the crit bonus damage as well while things like dueling does not). Probably not quite as good as dueling but still in a similar realm (TWF gets an extra attack over that style so its getsan extra instance of effect) and might be better than GWF style.

Part 4 allows TWF to keep closer to other style damages ratings without spending any special resources to do so. This method also keeps rogues from getting the ability without multiclassing.

Part 5 I think creates an overall feat that is worth the ASI and allows it to compete as viable compared to other feats. The feat increases defense, grants a bonus action attack on top of the attack TWF already gives, and the last ability turns TWF from a weak style for OAs to a strong one.

[TheCrowing1432]

Bonus action is a high value action in 5E, so many class features use it that it can become crowded for use depending on your class selection.

An extra attack sounds good, and it is good if you want dudes dead, but more often then not, theres probably something else you could be doing with that bonus action instead of an offhand attack.

Then theres the fact that the damage apparently falls off when compared to other styles, but hey, im a guy who genuinely enjoys using whips and daggers, so what do I know about damage optimization.

[suplee215]

I feel like the fighting style is given to the wrong classes. It is good, but most martial classes in this edition get their power (especially late game) from multiple attacks. It also completes with other bonus action activity. The +3-5 damage early one is big, but it becomes less competitive. It doesn't scale much. The classes you want it on are those with few or no extra attacks, little to no use for bonus actions, and/or damage riders. It is given to The Fighter and The Ranger. The Revised Beastmaster Ranger actually prefer this style. It grants a 2nd attack it loses due to subclass. It does compete with Hunter's Mark, but that is not nearly as important with 1 attack as it is with 2. A class that uses two weapon fighting a lot but does not get the style is The Rogue. The 2nd chance for sneak attack is extremely good. A paladin might also make use of the style. lvl 11 adds 1d8 damage to all attacks and while they can use bonus actions to add smite spells, typically they just use spell slots on direct smiting. The barbarian will also love it due to rage damage. However, there are 2 feats that give characters something similar in Polearm Mastery and Crossbow Expert. You get a bonus action attack you can add your modifier to, along with a -5/+10 feat. So there is no reason to go out of your way to get twf unless it is for concept.

[Knaight]

Not really. How good you fight unarmed is relevant to any fighter, because you may find yourself without a weapon. By contrast, how well you fight with two weapons is pretty irrelevant to a character who has chosen to wield a greatsword or glaive. It's not to a lesser extent, its completely different, because you will not be in a situation where you will be fighting with two weapons, barring incredibly rare contrivances.

Given that we're talking about a fairly hypothetical design space here, that's not necessarily the case. D&D is conventionally focused on adventurers going around fully geared, but it's really easy for a campaign to have a few distinct areas which have different weapons associated, and for them to brush up against each other - I've run games like this, where the bulk of the game was set in a city, and most of the people would follow the conventions of the city. That meant that what fights happened tended to involve no armor, and swords with maybe a buckler or parrying dagger. Occasionally the characters would brush up against the court, and court wear was a bit different, where the only weapon allowed was a knife*. Then there was the matter of what was going on outside the city, not the least of which was a mercenary camp and a band of smugglers, with the occasional travelling knight.

Had the game been balanced such that the difference between these fully armed and armored mercenaries, and the civilians in the city, and the practically unarmed court petitioners were just stylistic the game wouldn't have worked nearly as well. All of the skullduggery involved in bringing these worlds together in an advantageous way, gone. An excellent scene involving an unarmored PC with just a sword managing to deal with two fully armed and armored guards losing all impact because the mechanics took the threat out, gone. The bidding war between the PC's merchant organization and a rival on the mercenary group after several street brawls rendered largely irrelevant because said mercenaries go from terrifying to one more city street gang, except they have to cross the walls first. Then there's the matter of how the mechanical differences emphasized the narrative differences, with all the fish out of water stuff that came with it.

The PCs did travel occasionally (again, merchant guild), and once they did the big weapons came out. In one case, how well a character fought with two weapons literally applied to a character who chose to wield a greatsword outside the walls. Point is, a more realistic simulation can help the game instead of hurting it sometimes, and while unarmed vs. armed is a really obvious case it's not the only one. The aforementioned location based weaponry, civilization clashes with technological gaps, and all sorts of things where there's a valid design in either direction depending on what the goals are. Sometimes the question of whether a character uses a bow or a plasma rifle is largely an aesthetic one and balancing those options helps create a wider range of characters. Other times it's a huge gap in effectiveness, where the stark difference in weapons highlights the disparate aspects of a setting. D&D has historically leaned mostly towards the former, but it doesn't have to**.

*With obvious exemptions for royalty, their guards, and basically whoever else the people in charge wanted to have around for an implicit threat of violence for everyone else.
**With that said: Pretending that one of these is the case while it's actually the other is just bad design, and 5e dual wielding is running a bit close to that for comfort.

[Waterdeep Merch]

TWF is bad numbers-wise beyond the first few levels on everything except the rogue and certain weird paladin builds meant for white room nova bursting. It's atrocious in games with feats. It's playable, but sub-optimal in every way. Worse, it's boring thanks to removing the potential for neat bonus action abilities.

I've been trying to come up with a system to fix TWF since the 5e starter box. The easy way to keep the damage more or less consistent is to just add an extra attack to offhand attacks at level 11, but that only keeps it barely competitive and it's still no match once you introduce feats to the mix. Even giving DW to any TWF as the fighting style and making the current fighting style core doesn't fix it.

I can't remember why right now, but I didn't like the numbers I saw when I did the following-
*Make the TWF Fighting Style part of the normal usage of dual wielding
*Make the TWF Fighting style grant DW as currently written instead
*Make the offhand attacks during the regular Attack action in addition to all of your normal attacks, so long as you didn't use any of them on a two-handed weapon
*If you have the Extra Attack feature, gain a new offhand attack at level 11

That's my work in progress, though as I said before, I don't trust the numbers I'm seeing enough to use these rules in a live game yet.

[Elminster298]

My biggest problem with two weapon fighting, in all of it's 5th Ed forms, is that it just doesn't feel like two weapon fighting! Yes, mechanically it is inferior to most other forms of physical combat in this edition but that wouldn't even bother me at all if it still felt at all like you were actually fighting with two weapons. Maybe, and this is just a ballpark idea, it doesn't feel right because you don't get enough attacks. With bounded accuracy, even a small negative "to hit" per extra attack granted(especially if the negative gets bigger with more attacks) is enough of a balance for a TWF getting up to equal attacks with both hands. If a 20 fighter had TWF he could have 8 attacks but... 4 main hand have normal "to hit" off hand has a - 1, - 2, - 4, - 8 "to hit". You could even penalize speed for any round TWF was used by - 5ft per additional attack. It would feel like actually fighting with two weapons, have serious negative effects making it a tough choice each round(as well as for character creation as a whole), but would be strong enough for pretty much every physical combat character to consider.

[GlenSmash!]

Exactly right. And on the only class that might actually TWF effectively, a rogue, I'd take shortsword / dagger over two rapiers any day. Dealing 3 more damage per attack action, when I don't bonus action something else, doesn't compare to also having a ranged attack. Then I'd spend the feat on Alert, skulker, or something that got me more opportunity attacks.

Solid. I always start my various barbarians using two handaxes. It does the same damage as a greatsword, but you can get double the damage from Rage, by applying it two each weapon, spread the damage among two targets, and throw an axe when needed. By the time feats come into play I usually got the GWM, PM, or Shield Master route.

For Shortsword/dagger, I would grab Defensive Duelist. there's just something so satisfying about flicking your sword in at the last moment to block that hit. Makes you feel lite a true swordsman.

[Tanngrisnr]

I've been lurking on these boards for a long, long time. As most of you know (and some have in fact pointed out) the conclusion to these threads is always "TWF sucks".

At my table, my players and I have been using a homebrewed rule that, as far as we care, have ended most of the complaints. As some many others have shared their fixes, I decided to share ours here. It goes as follow:

Spoiler: TWF

Show

• General:

When attacking with two weapons, you cannot apply your ability modifier to damage rolls. You can only attack with two weapons if you are wielding two light melee weapons.

• Attack:

When you take the Attack action, you can attack with both your melee weapons.

• Extra Attack:

If you have the Extra Attack class feature, you choose one of the melee weapons you are wielding and make one extra attack during your Attack action. You cannot make more than one extra attack, even if you have more than one instance of the Extra Attack class feature.

• Fighting Style:

If you have the TWF Fighting Style, you can attack with melee wepons that lack the light property, but you still cannot dual wield heavy melee weapons. Also, you can draw two weapons as part of your attack.

• Dual Wielder feat:

You gain +1AC; you can add half your ability modifier (rounded up) to damage rolls when attacking with two weapons.

• TWF and Bonus Actions:

If you have a Bonus Action that allows you to make an attack, you choose one of the melee weapons you are wielding to make the bonus attack. You cannot make more than one attack during your Bonus Action.

• TWF and Reactions:

If you get to make an attack as your Reaction, you choose one of the melee weapons you are wielding to make the attack. You cannot make more than one attack as your Reaction.

• Hunter's Mark

The spell has been toned down to deal 1d12 damage once per round.

I hope this helps some of you.

[90sMusic]

When i'm playing a rogue, I usually use a bow... But if I get in melee, I often use that bonus action to disengage, hide, dash, whatever but occasionally i'll have a reason to take that extra attack.

As a rogue who only gets one attack per round, using a bonus for a second chance at sneak attack if your primary hit misses is fantastic for keeping the damage going. That's really all I use it for. In melee, I always have a dagger in the offhand, I just don't use it too often, but it definitely has it's uses.

[SharkForce]

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

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

is there any particularly compelling reason that a player role-playing someone who uses two-weapon fighting needs to be mechanically worse off than if they had chosen basically any other fighting style?

[Boci]

Given that we're talking about a fairly hypothetical design space here, that's not necessarily the case. D&D is conventionally focused on adventurers going around fully geared, but it's really easy for a campaign to have a few distinct areas which have different weapons associated, and for them to brush up against each other - I've run games like this, where the bulk of the game was set in a city, and most of the people would follow the conventions of the city. That meant that what fights happened tended to involve no armor, and swords with maybe a buckler or parrying dagger. Occasionally the characters would brush up against the court, and court wear was a bit different, where the only weapon allowed was a knife*. Then there was the matter of what was going on outside the city, not the least of which was a mercenary camp and a band of smugglers, with the occasional travelling knight.

Had the game been balanced such that the difference between these fully armed and armored mercenaries, and the civilians in the city, and the practically unarmed court petitioners were just stylistic the game wouldn't have worked nearly as well. All of the skullduggery involved in bringing these worlds together in an advantageous way, gone. An excellent scene involving an unarmored PC with just a sword managing to deal with two fully armed and armored guards losing all impact because the mechanics took the threat out, gone. The bidding war between the PC's merchant organization and a rival on the mercenary group after several street brawls rendered largely irrelevant because said mercenaries go from terrifying to one more city street gang, except they have to cross the walls first. Then there's the matter of how the mechanical differences emphasized the narrative differences, with all the fish out of water stuff that came with it.

The PCs did travel occasionally (again, merchant guild), and once they did the big weapons came out. In one case, how well a character fought with two weapons literally applied to a character who chose to wield a greatsword outside the walls. Point is, a more realistic simulation can help the game instead of hurting it sometimes, and while unarmed vs. armed is a really obvious case it's not the only one. The aforementioned location based weaponry, civilization clashes with technological gaps, and all sorts of things where there's a valid design in either direction depending on what the goals are. Sometimes the question of whether a character uses a bow or a plasma rifle is largely an aesthetic one and balancing those options helps create a wider range of characters. Other times it's a huge gap in effectiveness, where the stark difference in weapons highlights the disparate aspects of a setting. D&D has historically leaned mostly towards the former, but it doesn't have to**.

*With obvious exemptions for royalty, their guards, and basically whoever else the people in charge wanted to have around for an implicit threat of violence for everyone else.
**With that said: Pretending that one of these is the case while it's actually the other is just bad design, and 5e dual wielding is running a bit close to that for comfort.

Thank you for proving my point. You had a non-standard game, in which, in one case, the rules became relevant. D&D is about having fun, which means its more important that the person who wants to wield two weapons can be competitive with the fighting styles. That will not be a niche scenario. The fact that there can be a niche scenario in which it is "cool" is a poor reason to have a popular archetype under supported.