Why all the hate on dual wielding?

[Rogerdodger557]

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.

Perhaps I should clarify what I meant. The way that is written, yeah, it is a cop out. And that's on me. What my intent was that I wish people would take a concept(dual wielding eldritch knight) and optimize the concept, not just "well you could do that, but if you change a core principle of your concept(dual wielding) to something else, you do more damage." This is not to say their comments and the like are bad or invalid; it's just that from what I have seen going through the forum, people post their builds and they avoid TWF and Dual Wielder like its the plague.

[Easy_Lee]

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.

A single attack with combined weapon die might be the ticket, up to 1D8+1D8+Attribute. At most, that would be +2 damage over a greatsword, without adding magic weapons.

[Rogerdodger557]

A single attack with combined weapon die might be the ticket, up to 1D8+1D8+Attribute. At most, that would be +2 damage over a greatsword, without adding magic weapons.

That would more than likely work better, and still limits people to 1 reaction per round

[Tanarii]

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.

Good point, and I should have used DPR instead (ie a .65 chance to hit per attack) because of that and archery's bonus to hit.

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.

My experience is in a no feat campaign, very roughly off the top of my head (ie I've never counted it up) about 1/3 of characters have +4 in their primary stat at level 4. Largely, this is because many start with only +2 in their primary stat (15 ability score).

Edit: Honestly I don't like number crunching because there are too many assumptions. But in this case, it's the core of the matter. TWF is quite noticibly sub-par for single class fighters by level 5, even unoptimized. For Rangers it isn't so bad. And obviously for Rogues it's awesome.

The real question is: should it be a comparable style for single class fighters to 2H damage output? Archetype-wise, TWF has been a rogue and ranger thing since 2e. Fighters only gained it as an archetype in 4e.

If you make an agile fighter, you're looking for the benefits of being agile, probably in combination with skills from your background, and including effective long ranged attacks. Those benefits don't necessarily need to be comparable damage output to a 2H fighter.

[Kryx]

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.

It does have a niche: The ability to spread out damage on multiple targets. That's great for avoiding overkill which can occur with one big attack.
I value that around the same level as I do reach: 5% less damage. Considentally that's the difference beetween PAM and GWM.

imo TWF doing 95% of GWM is the goal and in my games that is accomplished via houserules.

A single attack with combined weapon die might be the ticket, up to 1D8+1D8+Attribute. At most, that would be +2 damage over a greatsword, without adding magic weapons.

This counteracts with what you said before. It makes TWF a carbon copy of big weapons. That shouldn't be the goal.

TWF in a game with -5/+10 and a bonus action on PAM will need a significant boost. In games that don't use those the changes aren't big:

Two Weapon Fighting
Once on your turn, when you take the Attack action and attack with a light weapon that you’re holding in one hand, you can attack with a different light weapon that you’re holding in the other hand. You don’t add your ability modifier to the damage of the weapon that you’re holding in the other hand, unless that modifier is negative. You can draw or stow two light weapons when you would normally be able to draw or stow only one.

Fighting style is fighting with larger weapons
Dual Wielder add "you can add your ability modifier to the damage of the second attack"

By my DPR of Classes via KPR or DPR the numbers are significantly improved and quite good for most classes (Ranger lags behind - all due to the 11th level ability)
It could probably use a small tweak to adjust some edge cases, but it works quite well.


Now if you want it to compete with RAW GWM and PAM (which have both been rightfully decried as OP) then you'd have to add a lot more on top of it.

[Saggo]

Good point, and I should have used DPR instead (ie a .65 chance to hit per attack) because of that and archery's bonus to hit.

Just a sidebar, Colossus Slayer DPR is found the same way as Sneak Attack. Since it's always a d8, the Colossus Slayer DPR of going from 2 attacks to 3 is fairly insignificant, about .36.

[Tanarii]

Just a sidebar, Colossus Slayer DPR is found the same way as Sneak Attack. Since it's always a d8, the Colossus Slayer DPR of going from 2 attacks to 3 is fairly insignificant, about .36.

Yup. That's what I meant by I should have used DPR. It's always best practice, even when doing napkin math like I was.

[SharkForce]

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.

you misunderstand.

i'm not asking if there was a good reason for the player to choose to have their character use two weapons.

i'm asking if there's a good reason for the player to be punished with a mechanically weaker character for choosing to use two weapons. it was intended as a rhetorical question, because as far as i'm concerned there isn't any compelling reason why we need to have that happen. it isn't necessary for role-play that two-weapon fighting be a less effective method of doing basically everything. so, ultimately, as far as i'm concerned two-weapon fighting should be just as mechanically strong (approximately) as any other fighting style.

now, if this game emphasized hyper-realistic gameplay, then sure, we might find that two-weapon fighting should be mostly pretty rare (or, depending on how you look at it, should most often involve a regular weapon plus a shield or parrying dagger). but that's not what D&D is like, so again... why shouldn't TWF be just as good as other options in it's own way?

[Tanarii]

it was intended as a rhetorical question, because as far as i'm concerned there isn't any compelling reason why we need to have that happen. it isn't necessary for role-play that two-weapon fighting be a less effective method of doing basically everything. so, ultimately, as far as i'm concerned two-weapon fighting should be just as mechanically strong (approximately) as any other fighting style.

Is it mechanically weaker? Or is it just that the melee damage output mechanically weaker?

Is the advantage of being able to make a Dex build, ie better Dex saves and better Dex checks and better ranged attacks, worth the trade off of lower Str saves and lower Str checks and lower melee damage?

(Also, this is specifically Fighters we're talking about. And of course, how much lower the damage is depends on if certain feats are in play.)

Edit: that said, I agree it's kind of silly for Str dual-wielding to be much mechanically weaker than 2H. Unless you consider adding range 20/60 to (some of) your attacks to be worth the trade off.

[Willie the Duck]

Perhaps I should clarify what I meant. The way that is written, yeah, it is a cop out. And that's on me. What my intent was that I wish people would take a concept(dual wielding eldritch knight) and optimize the concept, not just "well you could do that, but if you change a core principle of your concept(dual wielding) to something else, you do more damage." This is not to say their comments and the like are bad or invalid; it's just that from what I have seen going through the forum, people post their builds and they avoid TWF and Dual Wielder like its the plague.

Fair enough, and thanks for responding thoughtfully rather than defensively.
However, this is mostly, IMO, a complaint about forum culture. If I, as a player, have an interesting and inventive character who is fun to play but really suboptimal (I have one now, a lizardfolk barbarian/land-druid who is raising both Dex- and Str- and uses dex- and str-based weapons and sword-and-board, THF, and dual wielding as he sees fit), it's often very challenging to discuss on a forum thread. What is there to say about them, unless I want to give their whole life-story and what I've done with them? Now what is the most optimal Nova-DPR build? That's easy to discuss, and I can pull out all sorts of math and charts and whatnots. Same with best multiclass builds, or whether I think 4 Elements Monk is as bad as people say it is. Talking about (sub-)optimal game mechanics is easy to talk about on a forum because it usually hinges on systems we all roughly agree upon.

[Finieous]

Is it mechanically weaker? Or is it just that the melee damage output mechanically weaker?

Is the advantage of being able to make a Dex build, ie better Dex saves and better Dex checks and better ranged attacks, worth the trade off of lower Str saves and lower Str checks and lower melee damage?

(Also, this is specifically Fighters we're talking about. And of course, how much lower the damage is depends on if certain feats are in play.)

But now you're just talking about Dex fighters. Why be a TWFing Dex fighter rather than a rapier-and-shield Dex fighter with Dueling fighting style? By 11th level, Dueling is giving you (6 * hit chance) while TWFing is giving you (8.5 * hit chance), assuming you've maxed your Dex. But Dueling gives you +2 AC and doesn't use your bonus action. Is ~1.5 DPR worth +2 AC and a bonus action? No. And you're not even getting the 1.5 on turns when you throw in an additional attack (opportunity attack, riposte, haste attack, etc.). It still sucks.

[Kryx]

Is it mechanically weaker?

Yes. It has been shown time and time again that TWF does less damage than even sword and board. It's horrible in comparison to RAW GWM and PAM.

The benefits of dex argument is quite flawed. Dex has it's benefits and it's quite nice, but in terms of combat Heavy armor is far superior in terms of AC.

Level 1 Heavy Armor Fighter: 16 AC (Chainmail)
Level 1 Light Armor Fighter: 15 AC (16 Dex)

Level 5 Heavy Armor Fighter: 17/18 AC (Splint/Plate)
Level 5 Light Armor Fighter: 16 AC (18 Dex)

Level 9 Heavy Armor Fighter: 18 AC (Plate)
Level 9 Light Armor Fighter: 17 AC (20 Dex)

Level 12+ Heavy Armor Fighter: 19 AC (Plate + Dual Wielder)
Level 12+ Light Armor Fighter: 18 AC (20 Dex + Dual Wielder)

Strength wins out at all tiers. AC is the tradeoff for the other benefits like ranged attacks, dex saves > str saves, initiative.

[EvilAnagram]

Yes. It has been shown time and time again that TWF does less damage than even sword and board.

Is that actually the case? For a Ranger or Barbarian, I'm certain that isn't true. For a Fighter, assuming Dual Wielding, it looks on the surface like the extra chance to hit and the extra 9.5 damage is superior to Dueling's extra 8 damage.

[Finieous]

Is that actually the case? For a Ranger or Barbarian, I'm certain that isn't true. For a Fighter, assuming Dual Wielding, it looks on the surface like the extra chance to hit and the extra 9.5 damage is superior to Dueling's extra 8 damage.

If you assume Dual Wielder, I'll assume Shield Master, and we'll factor in how often I get my four attacks with advantage. And then we'll add additional attacks (opportunity attacks, ripostes, haste attacks, etc.), and yes, the TWFer will still do less damage over the course of the adventuring day, in addition to having -1 AC, no Dex save bonus on single-target attacks, and no pseudo-Evasion. The TWFer will still be able to draw two weapons at the same time, though. Can't take that away from him.

[Rogerdodger557]

Fair enough, and thanks for responding thoughtfully rather than defensively.
However, this is mostly, IMO, a complaint about forum culture. If I, as a player, have an interesting and inventive character who is fun to play but really suboptimal (I have one now, a lizardfolk barbarian/land-druid who is raising both Dex- and Str- and uses dex- and str-based weapons and sword-and-board, THF, and dual wielding as he sees fit), it's often very challenging to discuss on a forum thread. What is there to say about them, unless I want to give their whole life-story and what I've done with them? Now what is the most optimal Nova-DPR build? That's easy to discuss, and I can pull out all sorts of math and charts and whatnots. Same with best multiclass builds, or whether I think 4 Elements Monk is as bad as people say it is. Talking about (sub-)optimal game mechanics is easy to talk about on a forum because it usually hinges on systems we all roughly agree upon.

It's not a problem. I took my time with this response because I wanted to be thoughtful, and show that I had listened to the criticism you had given me. And you are right, the majority of posts on this forum of for optimization, not builds that are fun to play. When I initially posted, it was after reading several posts about building an optimized Eldritch Knight, and they had TWF color coded red. I haven't taken the time to calculate DPR for different builds, so I was curious as to why TWF was shunned. After reading several of the posts, I was feeling frustrated because this is a character I am passionate about, and a multitude of posts were calling the build sub-optimal. And while they may be right mathematically, I wasn't expecting it to, well, not exactly hurt, but I can't think of a better word right now. Which led to that post. And I want to thank you, for calling me out on it.

[Kryx]

Is that actually the case?

Yes. I, myself, have shown it many times.

See DPR of Classes (KPR) for example. Over 20 levels the class and fighting styles do the following percentage of an equivalent level range CR enemy:
GWM Fighter: 32%
PAM Fighter: 28%
TWF Fighter: 24%
S&B Fighter: 26%

TWF Ranger: 20.6%
S&B Ranger: 20.4%

Ranger TWF slightly edges out Ranger TWF, but that's at a huge tradeoff of AC and neither that nor the fighter D&B damage accounts for higher damage from allies vs a prone enemy.

Barbarian, I'm certain that isn't true.

Barbarians should never build Sword and Board. It's the antithesis of one of the main features that makes the class strong (Reckless Attack).

For a Fighter, assuming Dual Wielding, it looks on the surface like the extra chance to hit and the extra 9.5 damage is superior to Dueling's extra 8 damage.

Herein lies the problem: napkin math. I'm not saying this to be rude, but trying to judge the math of the game based on simple formulas is quite misleading.

[mephnick]

Barbarians should never build Sword and Board. It's the antithesis of one of the main features that makes the class strong (Reckless Attack).

Eh, you can still reckless attack. Shields aren't all about the AC. A shield master barbarian is an absolute brute that basically can't be killed and provides advantage to all his allies. Reckless Attack just becomes more of an edge option instead of a necessary one.

[Finieous]

Barbarians should never build Sword and Board. It's the antithesis of one of the main features that makes the class strong (Reckless Attack).

Optimized barbarians should never be sword-and-board. My Shield Master barbarian/fighter is a freaking blast to play.

Edit: Maybe even change "optimized" to "personal-DPR-optimized." He's extremely effective in the party.

[EvilAnagram]

If you assume Dual Wielder, I'll assume Shield Master, and we'll factor in how often I get my four attacks with advantage. And then we'll add additional attacks (opportunity attacks, ripostes, haste attacks, etc.), and yes, the TWFer will still do less damage over the course of the adventuring day, in addition to having -1 AC, no Dex save bonus on single-target attacks, and no pseudo-Evasion. The TWFer will still be able to draw two weapons at the same time, though. Can't take that away from him.

Excellent points.

I think the best fix to balance this out would be to switch out the useless feature on the feat with something along the lines of, "If you have the Extra Attack feature, you may make two attacks with your offhand attack when two-weapon fighting." It still costs a feat, it fits the overwhelming offense the style should employ, and it won't eclipse PAM or GWM as offensive styles.

[Kryx]

Optimized barbarians should never be sword-and-board. My Shield Master barbarian/fighter is a freaking blast to play.

Let me walk back my earlier statement: S&B Barbarians should never play S&B if they want to do big damage. They should optimally only do so if they have a party that can take advantage of advantage on melee attacks against prone enemies.

Otherwise the tradeoff between 28% of an enemy's HP and 17% of an enemy's HP is a horrible tradeoff for a Barbarian to make.

Though as has been mentioned several times in this thread unoptimal choices aren't necessarily unfun for every player.


Point being: S&B is a great and fun feature. RAW TWF is not a great feature and many people don't find such features fun.

[Citan]

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.

At first I thought it was too late to intervene but after reading the first two pages...

The hate is a strong word, but the dislike that is expressed from many people mainly comes from the results of purely theorical, whiteroomed calculations (read: generally breaking down once you are in practical play).

"TWF is vastly inferior damage-wise to GWM"
Sure, if all attacks count. But that's the thing that makes most sheets devoid of any meaning: they don't account for chance to hit. Which is something that is extremely variable, depending on your own bonus, enemy's AC, ways to get advantage or other buffs...

"TWF is a waste because of action economy"
Well, let's see.
Barbarian?
Brings a great additional attack, and also gives some versatility when you want to Shove.
"Normal" Barbarian (no shield, no other weapon): you just have Extra Attack to work with: try to Shove with the first attack, then hit with the remaining attack.
TWF Barbarian: use the bonus action to Shove (might as well, since you don't have the related Fighting Style, and Shove doesn't require a free hand IIRC) then use your Extra Attack.
"It's useless, Barb have Reckless Attack": except that putting oneself to disadvantage is not always the wise decision. TWF gives you a viable alternative to keep your offense without risking your defense.

Fighter?
Fighter has no use for a bonus action apart from Second Wind, which is 1/short rest. Eldricht Knight does bring War Magic, but then Eldricht Strike does compel to rely on Extra Attack instead (as illustrated by someone in this thread).

Paladin?
Doesn't have the related fighting style, so damage will be subpar. But it's one extra chance to smite, and most Paladins don't have that much to do with their bonus action in the first place...
- Smite spells? You have few slots, and you want to make them last, so it's usually once per encounter.
- Vengeance has his CD as a bonus action.
- Otherwise, IIRC only at much higher level do Paladin get other things to do with bonus action.

Ranger?
"It cannot be good, Ranger has so many uses for bonus action already". Really?
Ranger class provides exactly one class feature: Hide as bonus action, on 14th level only.
Beastmaster has however many other things to do with, namely command his beast, with Hunter has 0, nothing, nada.
Then come the spells: Hunter's Mark, Ensnaring Strike, Hail of Thorns, Lightning Arrow, Swift Quiver.
Of them, only one provides an ability that entices constant use of bonus action, Swift Quiver, which you get at 17th level and concerns ranged attacks only.
Of them, only one provides an ability that entices regular use of bonus action, Hunter's Mark, and it...
a) Benefits strongly for getting another attack.
b) Will "take" the bonus action only once every few rounds usually unless you waste it on low resilience targets.

Rogue?
"It's obvious it's bad, Rogue has so many options already with bonus action!"
Really? Rogue also has only one chance to apply its Sneak Attack normally. With TWF, it's another full chance to hit.
Besides, Rogue has no shield proficiency in the first place, so apart from an Arcane Trickster (who would probably take Warcaster at some point anyways) or an somewhat odd Grapple-specialized character, it's not like you have anything better to do with your off-hand.

Beyond that, the Dual Wielder feat, beyond that...

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.

Spoiler: By the way

Show

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)

You really should pay attention to what people say: Jas gave precisely two cases where Dual Wielder provides a strong benefit).

Can enable some interesting combos, although available mainly to Fighter because very feat-consuming...

- Defensive Duelist: you took PAM with a quarterstaff because you wanted extra chance to get OA? Or you are wielding that great magic weapon because of nifty ability, but it's not a finesse one and you'd like to improve your defense? Now you can wield a rapier in the other hand, getting just one less point of AC compared to wielding a shield, and getting a defensive reaction when facing the big hitting guy.

- Shield Master (+Tavern Brawler): you took this feat partly for the improved defense, partly for a chance at Shoving as a bonus action, but found yourself having some turns devoid of bonus action? Now you get +3 AC (shield + Dual Wielder), can Shove whenever you want, or Grapple and still bash heads with good reliability.

Or just wield one good melee weapon and one good throwable weapon, so you can easily increase your actual range when attacking enemies (great for Eldricht Strike) or make a grapple/attack combo (Extra Attack: attack with a thrown weapon -enabling TWF-, use the second to grapple, then make your bonus action melee attack: great on a Battlemaster with Trip Attack -keep him prone for allies- or Disarm Attack -pick his weapon instead of grappling him and attack him with it XD).

As for people who say "TWF means you need twice as many magic weapons to stay relevant compared to other people", that is a half-full half-empty choice. Because it can also be viewed as the chance to create some nasty (mechanically) or classy (roleplaywise) combos by wielding two weapons (obviously with Dual Wielder though, since magic light weapons are not that frequent if I'm not mistaken).

But most of all, TWF is good because it gives you an extra chance at dealing damage, without the need for any class/feat investment. That is the only "style" that does so.

However, the true value of that benefit obviously depends much on your class, character role and much more importantly party composition. But that could be said of all other "styles" as well...
Like, if you have a Cleric who Blesses you, a Bard who Magic Weapon/Elemental Weapon you, a Druid who Faerie Fires the enemies as a standard party, go Sharpshooter/GWM by all means XD.
But, if you are a single Fighter/Ranger with no exterior boost, TWF is usually the better choice for melee at least against higher AC (also for Ranger, another instance of Hunter's Mark).

[Spellbreaker26]

Basically, the main reason why Dual Wielding is hated is because it's a trap option - it's one that seems extremely valuable at the start of the game and certainly is for levels 1-4. However, after this point for the main martial classes it vastly decreases in power - especially if feats are in play. For Rogues it can be pretty damn handy, and somewhat for Bards. It's also probably a trap since in games other than DnD it can be extremely deadly, especially in video games, so people arrive with that expectation.

Ironically the less skilled you are in melee the more you benefit from two weapon fighter in a pinch because you have no normal extra attacks.

[Kryx]

@Citan: Please provide a scenario where a fighter can excel at his role using TWF better than he can while using GWM, PAM, or Shield Master.

Pure damage? GWM. More attack? PAM. More Utility? Pam or Shield Master. Most defense? Shield Master. Tripping? Shield Master.

[SharkForce]

At first I thought it was too late to intervene but after reading the first two pages...

The hate is a strong word, but the dislike that is expressed from many people mainly comes from the results of purely theorical, whiteroomed calculations (read: generally breaking down once you are in practical play).

"TWF is vastly inferior damage-wise to GWM"
Sure, if all attacks count. But that's the thing that makes most sheets devoid of any meaning: they don't account for chance to hit. Which is something that is extremely variable, depending on your own bonus, enemy's AC, ways to get advantage or other buffs...

this is accounted for. factoring in hit chance, TWF is the worst at dealing damage, and doesn't really offer anything else interesting to compensate.

"TWF is a waste because of action economy"
Well, let's see.
Barbarian?
Brings a great additional attack, and also gives some versatility when you want to Shove.
"Normal" Barbarian (no shield, no other weapon): you just have Extra Attack to work with: try to Shove with the first attack, then hit with the remaining attack.
TWF Barbarian: use the bonus action to Shove (might as well, since you don't have the related Fighting Style, and Shove doesn't require a free hand IIRC) then use your Extra Attack.
"It's useless, Barb have Reckless Attack": except that putting oneself to disadvantage is not always the wise decision. TWF gives you a viable alternative to keep your offense without risking your defense.

sure, and let's see what else... rage costs a bonus action, so no TWF on your first turn, and if you're just going to shove, shield gives you that plus a few other goodies. if we're ignoring feats, a two-handed weapon does more damage anyways, with no particular drawbacks.

Fighter?
Fighter has no use for a bonus action apart from Second Wind, which is 1/short rest. Eldricht Knight does bring War Magic, but then Eldricht Strike does compel to rely on Extra Attack instead (as illustrated by someone in this thread).

and feats. let's not forget feats. and sometimes racial abilities. also, TWF will still do less damage than just using a two-handed weapon or a sword & board unless the TWF has feats and the S&B doesn't.

Paladin?
Doesn't have the related fighting style, so damage will be subpar. But it's one extra chance to smite, and most Paladins don't have that much to do with their bonus action in the first place...
- Smite spells? You have few slots, and you want to make them last, so it's usually once per encounter.
- Vengeance has his CD as a bonus action.
- Otherwise, IIRC only at much higher level do Paladin get other things to do with bonus action.

you mean the smite spells that do the same damage as the smite you're saying is awesome to get another use of, plus add an extra effect? *those* smite spells?

Ranger?
"It cannot be good, Ranger has so many uses for bonus action already". Really?
Ranger class provides exactly one class feature: Hide as bonus action, on 14th level only.
Beastmaster has however many other things to do with, namely command his beast, with Hunter has 0, nothing, nada.
Then come the spells: Hunter's Mark, Ensnaring Strike, Hail of Thorns, Lightning Arrow, Swift Quiver.
Of them, only one provides an ability that entices constant use of bonus action, Swift Quiver, which you get at 17th level and concerns ranged attacks only.
Of them, only one provides an ability that entices regular use of bonus action, Hunter's Mark, and it...
a) Benefits strongly for getting another attack.
b) Will "take" the bonus action only once every few rounds usually unless you waste it on low resilience targets.

who cares if hunter's mark works better with more attacks if you can't use it while making that extra attack? i mean, what exactly are you fighting that you aren't killing something fairly regularly? do you primarily fight nothing but giant bricks of HP or something? because stuff should be getting killed.

Rogue?
"It's obvious it's bad, Rogue has so many options already with bonus action!"
Really? Rogue also has only one chance to apply its Sneak Attack normally. With TWF, it's another full chance to hit.
Besides, Rogue has no shield proficiency in the first place, so apart from an Arcane Trickster (who would probably take Warcaster at some point anyways) or an somewhat odd Grapple-specialized character, it's not like you have anything better to do with your off-hand.

hiding can give advantage, which means advantage, which means the same two chances to hit. all TWF is actually adding is 1d6 (and one less average damage on the main hand), or 1d8 with a feat. that's not nothing, but it's considerably less than crossbow expert, which is also a feat, could add. that said, rogues that want to make no feat investment *are* the one build that actually benefits significantly from TWF, *if* they don't plan on using ranged combat and hiding.

Beyond that, the Dual Wielder feat, beyond that...

Spoiler: By the way

Show

You really should pay attention to what people say: Jas gave precisely two cases where Dual Wielder provides a strong benefit).

Can enable some interesting combos, although available mainly to Fighter because very feat-consuming...

- Defensive Duelist: you took PAM with a quarterstaff because you wanted extra chance to get OA? Or you are wielding that great magic weapon because of nifty ability, but it's not a finesse one and you'd like to improve your defense? Now you can wield a rapier in the other hand, getting just one less point of AC compared to wielding a shield, and getting a defensive reaction when facing the big hitting guy.

- Shield Master (+Tavern Brawler): you took this feat partly for the improved defense, partly for a chance at Shoving as a bonus action, but found yourself having some turns devoid of bonus action? Now you get +3 AC (shield + Dual Wielder), can Shove whenever you want, or Grapple and still bash heads with good reliability.

Or just wield one good melee weapon and one good throwable weapon, so you can easily increase your actual range when attacking enemies (great for Eldricht Strike) or make a grapple/attack combo (Extra Attack: attack with a thrown weapon -enabling TWF-, use the second to grapple, then make your bonus action melee attack: great on a Battlemaster with Trip Attack -keep him prone for allies- or Disarm Attack -pick his weapon instead of grappling him and attack him with it XD).

As for people who say "TWF means you need twice as many magic weapons to stay relevant compared to other people", that is a half-full half-empty choice. Because it can also be viewed as the chance to create some nasty (mechanically) or classy (roleplaywise) combos by wielding two weapons (obviously with Dual Wielder though, since magic light weapons are not that frequent if I'm not mistaken).

But most of all, TWF is good because it gives you an extra chance at dealing damage, without the need for any class/feat investment. That is the only "style" that does so.

However, the true value of that benefit obviously depends much on your class, character role and much more importantly party composition. But that could be said of all other "styles" as well...
Like, if you have a Cleric who Blesses you, a Bard who Magic Weapon/Elemental Weapon you, a Druid who Faerie Fires the enemies as a standard party, go Sharpshooter/GWM by all means XD.
But, if you are a single Fighter/Ranger with no exterior boost, TWF is usually the better choice for melee at least against higher AC (also for Ranger, another instance of Hunter's Mark).

- defensive duelist: you mean the feat that basically nobody recommends? also, can't help noticing that this build you've mentioned does not in fact use TWF at all. you're just carrying a second weapon.

- shield master/tavern brawler: tavern brawler requires an empty hand to use the grapple, so TWF doesn't help. shield is an improvised weapon, not one of the one-handed weapons from the table. and if you're unable to shield bash or grapple, you're probably also unable to attack with a melee weapon, so what exactly is TWF supposed to do for you? TWF feat works with weapons, which shields are not (by definition, an improvised weapon is something that is not a weapon which you are using as a weapon). and you know what would give better AC with a shield? being able to spend your fighting style on +1 AC instead of making your very rare off-hand attacks do a bit of extra damage.

- so you're talking about giving up greatly increased damage so that you can add 1d4 damage with a thrown weapon, or giving up another fighting style so you can make that 1d4 + 5, on ultra-rare occasions? this is not a powerful benefit worth giving up much of anything for.

- TWF magic weapons: there isn't really a half-full glass here. if you have some examples of something that actually allows you to combo, that would be a start. an incredibly improbable thing to actually ever happen, but at least it would be a chance.

- extra chance at dealing damage: not substantially better than just dealing more damage in the first place. using a bigger weapon will probably make you deal more damage in the first place; unless you're fighting a horde of 1 HP monsters, TWF is very unlikely to pull ahead.

TWF is almost never the better option for damage, even if you don't want to invest (the exception being a rogue, who will gain slightly more damage with TWF), except at very low levels.

it really doesn't add much of anything. and yes, a given character can want to use TWF. that doesn't make it effective, that just makes it desired. it should be BOTH of those things, when you invest properly at least. people who want to use two weapons because it's fun for them shouldn't need to give up effectiveness.

[jas61292]

With the defensive defensive bonus of the feat, you do have to make sure you are looking at both offense and defense in a comparison. If the greatweapon user is doing more damage but has lower AC, that could be a win, but only if you do as much damage as those who have equal AC, and more than those with less. Unfortunately, I do think that this doesn't work out very well in practice, as a heavy weapon user can just take the defensive fighting style and have equal AC, while still typically pulling out ahead in damage, at least on a fighter.

Really, no matter what, unless you overhaul the mechanic, it will never be a great option... on a fighter at higher levels. However, on other classes, or fighters of less than level 11, it actually is not that bad, and dual wielder is a decent feat if you are a strength based TWF user. People often claim that it falls off for a fighter at level 5, but it does still hold advantages until 11. Unless utilizing GWM (which has its own risks and is enemy dependent), a heavy weapon user must have the GWF style in order to out damage a TWF user on a normal round. As such, the TWFer who picks up Dual Wielder is either ahead in damage in those average situations, or ahead in AC. Yes the heavy weapon user doesn't use his bonus action, and thus has more options, and yes he is stronger on an Action Surge round, but in an average round of attacks, there will be something the TWF user will have an advantage on. And that is good enough for me.

Sadly, this stops being true once you get to 11.

Dex fighter is actually similar, even though the feat is not as good for them. You can't use a great weapon with Dex, and Dex is a better stat in general, so there is no need to compare with GWF users on the Dex side. However, compared to dueling with a rapier, you again only keep up until level 11, unless you do max Dex AND take the feat. And even then, in exchange for all that, your advantage on damage is still very small, and you are behind in versatility, AC (if they have a shield) and damage on an action surge round.

Long story short, yes, TWF is not good on a higher level fighter. However, I think too much focus gets put on that one class. Yeah, it may be unfortunate that fighters are not good at two weapon fighting at higher levels, but it is what it is. Other classes can do it fine, such are rogue and barbarian. It could be better, but I do think it has enough of a niche to make it not need real fixing. That said, I think if you do want to change one thing so that you see more TWF in games, then change Paladin so it can take the style. TWF on a higher level paladin is actually its a great damage option, and doesn't need any feats to function well (though they would still appreciate it if you have a free ASI).

[GlenSmash!]

- defensive duelist: you mean the feat that basically nobody recommends?

Does nobody recommend this? I love it! But that has nothing to do with TWF

[SharkForce]

Does nobody recommend this? I love it! But that has nothing to do with TWF

it's good in the right situation. problem is, there aren't a ton of encounters you would expect to face remotely frequently where you're only worried about one big attack. even high damage monsters frequently to do it with multiple attacks.

[Kryx]

With the defensive defensive bonus of the feat, you do have to make sure you are looking at both offense and defense in a comparison. If the greatweapon user is doing more damage but has lower AC

Heavy Armor has more AC, actually:

The benefits of dex argument is quite flawed. Dex has it's benefits and it's quite nice, but in terms of combat Heavy armor is far superior in terms of AC.

Level 1 Heavy Armor Fighter: 16 AC (Chainmail)
Level 1 Light Armor Fighter: 15 AC (16 Dex)

Level 5 Heavy Armor Fighter: 17/18 AC (Splint/Plate)
Level 5 Light Armor Fighter: 16 AC (18 Dex)

Level 9 Heavy Armor Fighter: 18 AC (Plate)
Level 9 Light Armor Fighter: 17 AC (20 Dex)

Level 12+ Heavy Armor Fighter: 19 AC (Plate + Dual Wielder)
Level 12+ Light Armor Fighter: 18 AC (20 Dex + Dual Wielder)

Strength wins out at all tiers. AC is the tradeoff for the other benefits like ranged attacks, dex saves > str saves, initiative.

yes, TWF is not good on a higher level fighter. However, I think too much focus gets put on that one class. Yeah, it may be unfortunate that fighters are not good at two weapon fighting at higher levels, but it is what it is. Other classes can do it fine, such are rogue and barbarian. It could be better, but I do think it has enough of a niche to make it not need real fixing.

TWF is not good starting at 4th level. That isn't higher levels.
It doesn't function well for a Barbarian where TWF does 20% of an enemy's hp while GWM does 28%. Stated differently: TWF does 70% of GWM.

Fighter and Ranger are by far the most important TWF classes who have historically been known to use TWF and are currently setup to use TWF. It doesn't work well for them either.

[jas61292]

Heavy Armor has more AC, actually.

Completely missed the point. Str based TWF with Dual Wielder had more AC than a GWF user. That is an advantage. And, as mentioned, it keeps up ahead of other styles except GWF in terms of damage until 11.

Yes, it has flaws, but it has niche use, until 11.

[Citan]

this is accounted for. factoring in hit chance, TWF is the worst at dealing damage, and doesn't really offer anything else interesting to compensate.

Yeah, in theory. Always in theory. The fact holds that, probabilities, statistics and reality are all different things.
TWF gives you CHOICE: attack the same creature, attack different, still apply something when your Extra Attack failed, etc...

sure, and let's see what else... rage costs a bonus action, so no TWF on your first turn, and if you're just going to shove, shield gives you that plus a few other goodies. if we're ignoring feats, a two-handed weapon does more damage anyways, with no particular drawbacks.

Except that with TWF you get Rage bonus on attack. And you can adapt. With Shield Master you will also get only 2 attacks and one shove. With TWF you can mix shove, attacks and even grapple as you see fit.
Also, there are many classes that get a somewhat "mandatory" bonus action use on first turn, and nobody cried about it so far: Barb, Bladesinger, Vengeance Paladin, Moon Druid, etc... So it's really a weak argument.

and feats. let's not forget feats. and sometimes racial abilities. also, TWF will still do less damage than just using a two-handed weapon or a sword & board unless the TWF has feats and the S&B doesn't.

Except that there are very many great feats any one may want, and even a Fighter with 2 extra ASI may feel a bit cramped. If you want to put aside weapon style related feats, TWF provides you competitive damage and versatility while allowing you to rack as many other feats as wanted and maxing attack stat.

you mean the smite spells that do the same damage as the smite you're saying is awesome to get another use of, plus add an extra effect? *those* smite spells?

Yeah, I mean exactly those: it gives you more choice: either you want to nova and blow all your spells, then you have a better nova, then you have nothing good to do with your bonus action, so you might as well attack with it.
Or you blow one smite spell to keep concentration, then you have again nothing good to do with your bonus action, so you might as well attack with it.
Plus TWF gets bonus damage with Improved Divine Smite, and benefit a Vengeance (Hunter's Mark) or Oathbreaker Paladin (+CHA) too. Or another Paladin could grab Hex through Magic Initiate / Warlock dip if he really wants to build on it.
Because, again, you are not supposed to use Hunter's Mark / Hex bonus action systematically. If that's the case, then it was probably overkill in the first place. It's not like you have the obligation of putting another creature under mark right after the current one dropped to 0 HP.

who cares if hunter's mark works better with more attacks if you can't use it while making that extra attack? i mean, what exactly are you fighting that you aren't killing something fairly regularly? do you primarily fight nothing but giant bricks of HP or something? because stuff should be getting killed.

Well, if you are not smart enough to put Hunter's Mark on a resilient target, that's your problem. XD
More seriously, the fact is, putting Hunter's Mark on low HP targets is stupid in the first place. Might as well better use a plain weapon attack. And there are many situations in which a resilient target will last several turns, either because you are the only one able to attack it for whatever reason, or because it's just very nimble. So technically, you shouldn't have to "move" the mark every turn (or even every two turns).

hiding can give advantage, which means advantage, which means the same two chances to hit. all TWF is actually adding is 1d6 (and one less average damage on the main hand), or 1d8 with a feat. that's not nothing, but it's considerably less than crossbow expert, which is also a feat, could add. that said, rogues that want to make no feat investment *are* the one build that actually benefits significantly from TWF, *if* they don't plan on using ranged combat and hiding.

And yet another theorycraft argument. Practice is very different: you cannot always hide. And if you cannot hide, you don't get advantage.

- defensive duelist: you mean the feat that basically nobody recommends? also, can't help noticing that this build you've mentioned does not in fact use TWF at all. you're just carrying a second weapon.

I never noticed that that feat was one that "basically nobody recommends". And honestly I would find this a very stupid advice. Defensive Duelist is a bad choice at low levels, but a +6 at higher level will make a difference more often than not. If you are not set on a proactive control build (Sentinel), it's a very worthy feat. Beyond that, you can still use it to attack you know. *such dishonesty is really saddening -shrugs-*

- shield master/tavern brawler: tavern brawler requires an empty hand to use the grapple, so TWF doesn't help. shield is an improvised weapon, not one of the one-handed weapons from the table. and if you're unable to shield bash or grapple, you're probably also unable to attack with a melee weapon, so what exactly is TWF supposed to do for you? TWF feat works with weapons, which shields are not (by definition, an improvised weapon is something that is not a weapon which you are using as a weapon). and you know what would give better AC with a shield? being able to spend your fighting style on +1 AC instead of making your very rare off-hand attacks do a bit of extra damage.

Sorry, but it totally works. Absolutely NOTHING in the Dual Wielder feat requires a "named weapon" expressely. And PHB does precises whatever to do with the improvised weapons: either define a basic stat if that weapon bears no resemblance to a named weapon, or treat it as the named weapon if it's similar enough. And Shield is wielded in one hand, so although improvised, it's still a one-handed weapon, so it qualifies. Improvised weapon is just a category used to determine how to rule any weapon that has not been specifically imagined by WoTC nor handcrafted in advance in a homebrew by the DM.

- so you're talking about giving up greatly increased damage so that you can add 1d4 damage with a thrown weapon, or giving up another fighting style so you can make that 1d4 + 5, on ultra-rare occasions? this is not a powerful benefit worth giving up much of anything for.

What "greatly increased damage"? Are you talking about cantrips? LOL.
Eldricht Strike means either you use as many attacks as it takes on one enemy to ensure a powerful debuff sticks behind (Blindness, Hold Person are the first to come to mind, but there are certainly others). Or striking several enemies before applying a nice cleaning AOE (Grease, Earth Tremor, Shatter, Fireball, Slow etc).
I won't presume I have to explain to you how much more efficient this is than just War Magic on a single target (except if that would be enough to kill it obviously).

Battlemaster's Manoeuvers means that you can ensure an enemy sticks to the ground (which is useful when you Shoved him but its turn would come soon after) and still attack him much more easily with TWF, although once you get 3rd attack it's less interesting (but that's a 11th level benefit here).

Also, you don't care about having that many attacks if you cannot pull them all off: having two weapons, one of which being a throwing one, means you can pull off an attack without engaging in melee or just actually "reaching" an enemy otherwise too far away (possibly applying a Manoeuver for a Battlemaster, or preparing a spell next turn for an Eldricht Knight) while still keeping one weapon for defense (Parry, Defensive Duelist) or offense (opportunity attack) as well as your object interaction for anything if needed. Incidentally, it's one of the way for Eldricht Knight to use War Magic without any need for Warcaster compared to a Sword & Board Eldricht Knight (unless, of course, this S&B took Tavern Brawler ;)).

For a DEX-based Fighter, you will usually end with Hand Crossbow and Sharpshooter which packs a decent range. You have in fact no reason at all to go to the fronline except if you want to take hits.
For a STR-based Fighter, having a standard mobility means that if you spent a decent part of your move to close in to an enemy and finished him off, you may find enemies around are just a bit too far away for you to reach them. Or enemies that you yourself don't want to approach because it's too dangerous, either to reach them, or to back off from them.

If you have an habit of using only thrown weapons, then you can make up one attack then draw another one to be ready for the next turn. Otherwise, you can at most make one more ranged attack with a thrown weapon, using your free interaction to draw one as part of the action. But then you are unarmed until the start of your next round.

If you were already wielding one throwable weapon, it's up to 2 attacks while keeping all advantages of wielding your main weapon.

As for what Dual Wielder brings: since you are adamant on damage optimization, you won't deny that Javelin (1d6, 30/120) makes a big improvement on daggers (1d4) or even light hammers (1d6, 20/60) won't you?

It may not make a difference often if you use it only as a last resort, but when taking this into account it gives much more leeway to position yourself efficiently, not only for your current turn, but also for the upcoming ones.

- TWF magic weapons: there isn't really a half-full glass here. if you have some examples of something that actually allows you to combo, that would be a start. an incredibly improbable thing to actually ever happen, but at least it would be a chance.

Well, for starters, you could hold several weapons that cater to different damage types (Fire/Frost weapons), or wield ones that provide different resistance (such as Staffs or Fire/Frost), or wield ones that provides bonus to spell attacks / DC (such as Staff of the Woodlands, Staff of Healing), or ones that provide special benefits against different kinds of creatures (like the Mace of Disruption). Most of these weapon are not light, so Dual Wielder is of a great benefit here.

An UA Phoenix Sorcerer with Extra Attack from whatever source could profit well from having two Flametongues as well (IIRC it gets bonus damage each time it deals fire damage).

A UA Hexblade Warlock with Hex could wield his pact weapon or any other magic weapon, have a Rod of the Pact Keeper, and with Tavern Brawler and Dual Wielder still make another attack to get the extra damage from Hex and archetype benefit (IIRC it gets extra damage each time it deals damage to the marked target).

Now for a very stupid and nigh impossible combo: you could hold two Defenders and to get up +6 AC. But yes, that should never happen (or you should buy several chocolate boxes to your DM XD).

- extra chance at dealing damage: not substantially better than just dealing more damage in the first place. using a bigger weapon will probably make you deal more damage in the first place; unless you're fighting a horde of 1 HP monsters, TWF is very unlikely to pull ahead.

In theory, sure. In practice you are very glad to have an extra chance to deal at least *some* damage when the dice betrayed you times in a row.
The "probably" you use is as shallow as mine: the fact is that we are really reliant on luck in the end, so whether two-handed weapon actually fares better will get a different answer depending on many factors, first and foremost being the party around. If you have people to buff you, then going for the most reliable damage (GWM) is obviously the best. If you tend to luck out on rolls and nobody can save it for you (like a Bard), getting another chance is invaluable.

TWF is almost never the better option for damage, even if you don't want to invest (the exception being a rogue, who will gain slightly more damage with TWF), except at very low levels.

it really doesn't add much of anything. and yes, a given character can want to use TWF. that doesn't make it effective, that just makes it desired. it should be BOTH of those things, when you invest properly at least. people who want to use two weapons because it's fun for them shouldn't need to give up effectiveness.

Yes, it adds much: it adds versatility and reliability for a great deal of characters, in offense, defense and tactics.
But, as often, it requires actually trying to play its strengths (and being smart about it) to really see what it's worth.