Why all the hate on dual wielding?

[Knaight]

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.

The game was also about having fun, where the disparity in equipment contributed to the fun. That's my point, that "about having fun" doesn't actually favor one of these conclusions over the other.

[Boci]

The game was also about having fun, where the disparity in equipment contributed to the fun. That's my point, that "about having fun" doesn't actually favor one of these conclusions over the other.

No, it does. "Having fun" favours the conclusion of people being effectively with the fighting style you have chosen, because . The enjoyment someone gets from the game through their chosen fighting style being a valid choice outweighs what another person loses through the fighting style they did not choose being more effective than it was historically.

[Cybren]

No, it does. "Having fun" favours the conclusion of people being effectively with the fighting style you have chosen, because . The enjoyment someone gets from the game through their chosen fighting style being a valid choice outweighs what another person loses through the fighting style they did not choose being more effective than it was historically.

This is begging the question. "Having fun requires that everyone be equal power level!" "why" "because that's fun"

[Knaight]

No, it does. "Having fun" favours the conclusion of people being effectively with the fighting style you have chosen, because . The enjoyment someone gets from the game through their chosen fighting style being a valid choice outweighs what another person loses through the fighting style they did not choose being more effective than it was historically.

In that particular game much fun was had precisely because the chosen, most common fighting style was less effective than other options.

[SharkForce]

This is begging the question. "Having fun requires that everyone be equal power level!" "why" "because that's fun"

it doesn't require everyone being equally effective, but it is generally facilitated by everyone being closer rather than further apart... i don't recall anyone ever saying "this character is no fun, i'm not weaker than everyone else". can't say the same for the reverse.

[thereaper]

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.

I'm not sure I'd go that far. Certainly, in the vast majority of situations, there are better options. But there are a few corner cases where it makes sense. I have an idea for a Dex Valor Bard burning a hole in my back pocket that would TWF simply because it would let him get more damage than a single weapon (and slightly more than GFB, for that matter) without requiring any investment. It would require eating his bonus actions and free object interactions, of course, but turns where I'm hypothetically not willing to make those sacrifices would be what Vicious Mockery would be for.

But, yeah, if you're making any feat investments or you're a strength-based character, there are almost certainly better options.

[Boci]

In that particular game much fun was had precisely because the chosen, most common fighting style was less effective than other options.

Yes, in that particular game. I'm not saying it cannot ever be fun, just that on balance making TWF equal to the others is more fun for the kind of game D&D generally is.

This is begging the question. "Having fun requires that everyone be equal power level!" "why" "because that's fun"

I never said having fun required everyone to be equal, merely that its more fun in a game like D&D when the fighting styles are equally viable than when it isn't. Big difference.

[Rogerdodger557]

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?

Roleplaying wise, yeah there is some stuff in his backstory for using two weapons. Tabletopping? I just wanted to play differently than the other members of my party. There's a sword and board sorcadin, a great weapon wielding wizard, a mace and shield cleric, another cleric that I can't remember what they have for equipment, and a druid.

[Cybren]

Yes, in that particular game. I'm not saying it cannot ever be fun, just that on balance making TWF equal to the others is more fun for the kind of game D&D generally is.



I never said having fun required everyone to be equal, merely that its more fun in a game like D&D when the fighting styles are equally viable than when it isn't. Big difference.

you're begging the question again. You're presuming that there's one way of fun (balance) and then justifying it because you think it's more fun. Some peoples fun derives from a holistic approach to a system where there are valid use cases for every ability, which 5E pretty much has. "equally viable" is an overly meaningless metric.

[Boci]

you're begging the question again. You're presuming that there's one way of fun (balance) and then justifying it because you think it's more fun. Some peoples fun derives from a holistic approach to a system where there are valid use cases for every ability, which 5E pretty much has. "equally viable" is an overly meaningless metric.

No it isn't. People generally don't want their fighting style to be sub-optimal compared to others, as evidenced on this forum by the numerous threads asking for mechanical help when an archetype seems underwhelming, and far far less asking for help making their archetype weaker.

[Unoriginal]

Is dual wielding character really bad compared to a non-optimized character?

[Cybren]

No it isn't. People generally don't want their fighting style to be sub-optimal compared to others, as evidenced on this forum by the numerous threads asking for mechanical help when an archetype seems underwhelming, and far far less asking for help making their archetype weaker.

Which doesn't govern what is and isn't fun. This is why you're begging the question. Not everyone cares about the same things within the game as you, nor does everyone derive their fun from the same space as you. You are assuming that everyone values the same thing you do, which is common for people in general, but i've noticed it to be incredibly common on game forums.

[Boci]

Is dual wielding character really bad compared to a non-optimized character?

Define non optimized? In general, yeah, it is. Especially at level 5+. A great weapon fighter with a maul does 4d6+6 damage spread over 2 attack, rerolling 1s and 2s, with the option of of taking -5 to hit to get +10 to damage, and a bonus attack if an the attack crits. A two weapon fighter is dealing 3d8+9 damage, not rerolling 1s or 2s, and is using their bonus action. The only thing they have to show for it is +1, which isn't really worth it. The great sword fighter also gets more out of action surge comparatively, and their interruption attacks are better.

Which doesn't govern what is and isn't fun. This is why you're begging the question. Not everyone cares about the same things within the game as you, nor does everyone derive their fun from the same space as you. You are assuming that everyone values the same thing you do, which is common for people in general, but i've noticed it to be incredibly common on game forums.

No, as I said, its the forum. There over 2 million posts about the various editions of D&D, and a pattern has emerge that people tend to be like their chosen fighting style to be equally viable rather worse to the others. Its not conclusive, but its more than just me on this forum.

[Diebo]

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

I played in one group with a bard, and he took Dual Wielding and was definitely not optimized. He kept wanting to role-play what he thought a dual-wielding bard should be able to do, but wasn't able. DM: "No, you cannot make an attack with BOTH weapons and inspire someone." Or cast Healing Word. Or add your ability modified to the damage--resulting in the continually disappointing: "yes, your off-hand hits. Roll for damage. Ok, you did 3 points of damage". Or do XYZ. He regretted taking dual wielder, it is a trap feat for a bard.

I am in another group where two players are dual wielding, a beast-master ranger and a strength-based champion/assassin. Neither are optimized. The rogue uses a spear in one hand. He can only sneak attack with his other hand, and cannot use cunning action when he attacks with both weapons. I have never noticed this bothering him or the group at all. In a party of five, there is a serious lack of finesse-based magic weapons to go around (again, this doesn't seem to bother anyone).

If everyone is having fun, there really isn't a problem. For me the problem with dual wielding is that the mechanics in 5E make it compete with bonus actions, and bonus actions can be where a lot of role-playing comes from. I think the fix is to link two-weapon fighting to the attack action somehow.

[Cybren]

No, as I said, its the forum. There over 2 million posts about the various editions of D&D, and a pattern has emerge that people tend to be like their chosen fighting style to be equally viable rather worse to the others. Its not conclusive, but its more than just me on this forum.

You do realize that forums are not a representative sample of all D&D players, not even like, slightly? By virtue of the platform it sorts for people that are already highly invested in the game, and further sorts for people that like to discuss the game abstractly. The average D&D player is average.

[Boci]

You do realize that forums are not a representative sample of all D&D players, not even like, slightly? By virtue of the platform it sorts for people that are already highly invested in the game, and further sorts for people that like to discuss the game abstractly. The average D&D player is average.

Okay, so what are you basing your opinions on how the game should be? Or are arguing its impossible to know whats more fun from a design perspective.

[Easy_Lee]

No, as I said, its the forum. There over 2 million posts about the various editions of D&D, and a pattern has emerge that people tend to be like their chosen fighting style to be equally viable rather worse to the others. Its not conclusive, but its more than just me on this forum.

I take issue to the word "equally" here. Players don't want to be equal anymore than people want to be equal in real life. People like to specialize. They like to be different.

Imbalance is only a huge problem when two options do the same thing, but one does it better. Great weapon fighting vs two weapon fighting is like that. Same range, same goal, but great weapons do it better. And assuming the TWF builds for defense, a shield user does that better while still having better damage.

That's the problem. It's not just that TWF deals less damage. The style has no niche.

[Boci]

I take issue to the word "equally" here. Players don't want to be equal anymore than people want to be equal in real life. People like to specialize. They like to be different.

Equal and equally viable are two different things.

[Finieous]

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)

So imagine that you'd taken PAM and Defense fighting style, instead of Dual Wielder and Two-Weapon fighting style. Your main attacks would do 3*(1d10+5) and your bonus action attack would do 1d4+5, rather than 3*(1d8+5) and 1d8+5. Your AC would be the same (Defense offsets Dual Wielder). You'd have 10-foot reach and enemies would provoke opportunity attacks when they enter your reach instead of the ability to draw two weapons at the same time. You'd also have the ability to take GWM at 14, substantially scaling up your damage.

That's all it is.

[Cybren]

Okay, so what are you basing your opinions on how the game should be? Or are arguing its impossible to know whats more fun from a design perspective.

Yeah that's closer to it. I'm arguing you can't make broad declarative statements about what is Objectively Fun unless you make it a boring circular aphorism like "Fun is doing something you love".

[Easy_Lee]

Equal and equally viable are two different things.

Right, and that's what I'm talking about. Ideally, TWF should have a niche. For example, it could be better at reaction attacks. But it doesn't have one, it simply underperforms.

[Boci]

Yeah that's closer to it. I'm arguing you can't make broad declarative statements about what is Objectively Fun unless you make it a boring circular aphorism like "Fun is doing something you love".

Sure, in that case feel free to read my with "in my opinion the game should" in front.

But really I think we can do better than that. We can't be 100% sure, but we can make educated guesses. In addition the forum (and if that doesn't county because who don't post on the forum don't mind, then that means the forum wins, because other people don't mind), but we also have the genre. You are a hero. Neither is D&D particularly realistic. Longbows and heavy crossbows reload at the same speed for all character don't have extra attack, so fighters, paladins and rangers pre-level 5, and rogues forever, there's just not much variety between weapons, armour penetration isn't a thing, gone is the variuable critting from 3.5 or the weapon accuracy of 4th.

So, is it a good idea, in a hero game which isn't that realistic when it comes to representing it mideval weaponry, to then bring up realism for one fighting style to make it not as good as the others? I think that's a safe-ish no. Not conclusive, but I don't think its a case that we can't possibly ever know, both options have to be equally good.

[Rogerdodger557]

So imagine that you'd taken PAM and Defense fighting style, instead of Dual Wielder and Two-Weapon fighting style. Your main attacks would do 3*(1d10+5) and your bonus action attack would do 1d4+5, rather than 3*(1d8+5) and 1d8+5. Your AC would be the same (Defense offsets Dual Wielder). You'd have 10-foot reach and enemies would provoke opportunity attacks when they enter your reach instead of the ability to draw two weapons at the same time. You'd also have the ability to take GWM at 14, substantially scaling up your damage.

That's all it is.

Makes sense. If I had wanted to be the wall of the party, I probably would have done something like this. However, I like to save my reaction for Shield or Absorb Elements, for if/when I get hit by something, and my party's sorcadin is Oath of the Crown, so he tends to be the main focus of attacks, especially since he dipped 2 fighter(for Action Surge/fighting style), so he tends to be the tank, I'm DPS, We have a healer(Life Cleric), AoE/Healer(Light Cleric), and Control/Tank?(Abjuration Wizard), so while that is a good combo, we needed more focused attacks as a party. That is, of course, a meta game reasoning for my choice. I also just really like the visuals of a dual wielder.

[Willie the Duck]

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.

Okay, others have pointed this out, but I want to reiterate it. The fact that you include the what-am-I-supposed-to-do,-apologize? part makes it look like you are confusing what people are doing. People don't hate dual wielding. They like dual wielding, as a concept. However, dual wielding, as it plays out based on the rules of the game, is mechanically underwhelming, underpowered, and generally disappointing. It makes people choose between what they want to do thematically (dual wield) and what they want to do mechanically (any other, more optimal, choice). That, at least for many people, is a design goal--if you're going to have differing fighting styles, and make characters choose between them in some relatively permanent way (such as feats and fighting style class features), then they should be relatively similar in power. About the only build in 5e which really is better off for having chosen dual wielding is a melee rogue, and that's just a rather dissatisfying selection space for such a broad thing.

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.

The more attacks you get per round, the less benefit having one extra attack is. It's the law of diminishing returns. If you only get one attack (say, as a rogue), then that extra attack becomes really meaningful. A 20th level fighter with four attacks--they'd much rather increase the damage of those four attacks (such as with 2-handed weapons and the associated feats) than to get even-one-more just because.

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

Okay, that is both a cop-out and absolutely not fair to these theoretical people. They are talking about the mechanics of the build because that is usually the subject at hand. Again, and I really want to hear you acknowledge this point, people talk about dual wielding as suboptimal because they like the concept, and are disappointed in the mechanics presented.

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.

Exactly.

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.

These are all specifics of your campaign. Why would they effect the overall opinion of dual wielding, as presented on online forums?

Roleplaying wise, yeah there is some stuff in his backstory for using two weapons. Tabletopping? I just wanted to play differently than the other members of my party. There's a sword and board sorcadin, a great weapon wielding wizard, a mace and shield cleric, another cleric that I can't remember what they have for equipment, and a druid.

And wouldn't it be a better situation for you not to be penalized mechanically for these backstory and tabletopping decisions?

[Rogerdodger557]

Right, and that's what I'm talking about. Ideally, TWF should have a niche. For example, it could be better at reaction attacks. But it doesn't have one, it simply underperforms.

the main thing that would make TWF and Dual Wielder better is if it let you make two attacks of opportunity(two weapons), but that would easily be more broken than what WotC wants/envisioned.

[Tanarii]

Define non optimized? In general, yeah, it is. Especially at level 5+. A great weapon fighter with a maul does 4d6+6 damage spread over 2 attack, rerolling 1s and 2s, with the option of of taking -5 to hit to get +10 to damage, and a bonus attack if an the attack crits. A two weapon fighter is dealing 3d8+9 damage, not rerolling 1s or 2s, and is using their bonus action. The only thing they have to show for it is +1, which isn't really worth it. The great sword fighter also gets more out of action surge comparatively, and their interruption attacks are better.

He said non-optimized. You're using Feats, which is pretty much the only way you can optimizing in 5e, other than multiclassing.

So GWF Fighter is doing 4d6+6 re roll 1,2 and has their bonus action but typically nothing to do with it. TWF is doing 3d6+9 but using their bonus action. Damage is 22.6 vs 19.5. At level 11 it becomes 6d6+12 re roll 1,2 vs 4d6+16, or 36.9 vs 30. Also AC is probably 17 (Splint) for 2H vs 15 for TWF (Studded Leather). Otoh Stealth is likely -2 at disadvantage for the 2H vs +3 or +5 for the TWF.

Rangers instead are looking at, if they are willing to use Hunter's Mark and already have the mark on target so the bonus is available for TWF:
TWF 6d6+1d8+9, 34.5 damage
Archery +2 to hit (or ~+20%dpr relative to TWF), 3d8+2d6+6, 29 damage (adjusted for relative dpr) at up to 150 ft.

(Note there's a lot of assumptions. Especially the bonus action for moving hunters mark competing with TWF. But also that they have colossus slayer.)

[Boci]

He said non-optimized. You're using Feats, which is pretty much the only way you can optimizing in 5e, other than multiclassing.

So GWF Fighter is doing 4d6+6 re roll 1,2 and has their bonus action but typically nothing to do with it. TWF is doing 3d6+9 but using their bonus action. Damage is 22.6 vs 19.5. At level 11 it becomes 6d6+12 re roll 1,2 vs 4d6+16, or 36.9 vs 30. Also AC is probably 17 (Splint) for 2H vs 15 for TWF (Studded Leather). Otoh Stealth is likely -2 at disadvantage for the 2H vs +3 or +5 for the TWF.

Rangers instead are looking at, if they are willing to use Hunter's Mark and already have the mark on target so the bonus is available for TWF:
TWF 6d6+1d8+9, 34.5 damage
Archery +2 to hit (or ~+20%dpr relative to TWF), 3d8+2d6+6, 29 damage (adjusted for relative dpr) at up to 150 ft.

(Note there's a lot of assumptions. Especially the bonus action for moving hunters mark competing with TWF. But also that they have colossus slayer.)

Collossus slayer only triggers once per round, so two weapon fighting is an extra chance to trigger it, but as long as at least one attack hits, its not any better for them.

Also since the fighters aren't taking feats, they are likely increasing their stat mod to +4, unless their race isn't adding to their primary stat.

[Finieous]

Makes sense. If I had wanted to be the wall of the party, I probably would have done something like this. However, I like to save my reaction for Shield or Absorb Elements, for if/when I get hit by something, and my party's sorcadin is Oath of the Crown, so he tends to be the main focus of attacks, especially since he dipped 2 fighter(for Action Surge/fighting style), so he tends to be the tank, I'm DPS, We have a healer(Life Cleric), AoE/Healer(Light Cleric), and Control/Tank?(Abjuration Wizard), so while that is a good combo, we needed more focused attacks as a party. That is, of course, a meta game reasoning for my choice. I also just really like the visuals of a dual wielder.

The last reason is a good one -- and really the only one you need. The other reasons, not so much. I'm especially baffled by "we needed more focused attacks." You don't have to use your reaction for additional opportunity attacks; it's not like it comes up every round anyway. Even if you never use the reaction option, you still have better reach, better damage, better damage-scaling opportunities for the late tiers of play, and you give up literally nothing (mechanically speaking).

So that's why people "hate" on TWFing. The truth is, it's probably fine in a no-feats game, and therefore could be "fixed" with a damage-scaling feat of its own.

[Rogerdodger557]

These are all specifics of your campaign. Why would they effect the overall opinion of dual wielding, as presented on online forums?

I felt the need to clarify a few things(AC, stats, etc.) because of how some posters were saying that Dual Wielder wasn't nessacary for DEX-based fighters and such.

And wouldn't it be a better situation for you not to be penalized mechanically for these backstory and tabletopping decisions?

Maybe. In our campaign, we recently got ambushed by a group of cultists that had a gem that radiates an anti-magic field. While the others were trying to get the stone back in it's container, I was happy to have benefits that let me have 4 attacks per turn effectively.

[Boci]

Maybe. In our campaign, we recently got ambushed by a group of cultists that had a gem that radiates an anti-magic field. While the others were trying to get the stone back in it's container, I was happy to have benefits that let me have 4 attacks per turn effectively.

Yeah, but damage-wise 3 attacks with a great sword is better, before we even consider GWM. As has been said many times, if you find that fun, then that's all that matters, but you likely would have achieved more with a different fighting style.