Why all the hate on dual wielding?

[Kryx]

Str based TWF with Dual Wielder had more AC than a GWF user.

+1 AC is worth about ~9-10% damage, not 30%.
If you want ac you can get +2 with shield master while doing more damage than TWF.

It has no role where it excels by RAW.

it keeps up ahead of other styles except GWF in terms of damage until 11.

This is incorrect. Several cases of math have been provided that show this is not the case.

[mgshamster]

Despite the awfulness, my dual wielding champ is a ton of fun, and is close enough that I don't really notice any discrepancies.

Kryx is absolutely correct that the math shows it lacks, and I've made arguments in favor of TWF and since changed my own mind based on evidence.

But dispite all that, I have a blast with my Dual Wield fighter. And to me, that's what really matters.

It's not like PF/3.5, where it required a **** ton of feats to be a dual wielder and you still sucked ass. In this edition, you just lag a little behind in damage. If you're ok with that, it can still be fun.

The key is that you don't enter the game expecting to be a damage king - that role belongs to the GWM or pole-arm guy. Accept that, and you'll still have a blast whirling those blades.

[Citan]

+1 AC is worth about ~9-10% damage, not 30%.
If you want ac you can get +2 with shield master while doing more damage than TWF.

It has no role where it excels by RAW.


This is incorrect. Several cases of math have been provided that show this is not the case.

Well, no argue that shield provides better defense (with Shield Master) and two-handed better potential damage (with GWM, barring the potential to-hit problem) at the end of the day, between stats bumps, higher proficiency, + potential bonuses from equipment as far as direct damage and to-hit (+x weapon) or AC (+x shield) are concerned.

But it does has a role where it excels (actually two): versatility and mobility. For a STR-based warrior (or DEX-based that doesn't want to go Sharpshooter or Crossbow Expert for whatever reason), it's a great boon. Because theorical maths can never take into account the multitude of parameters that you face in a concrete adventure, among which the important "actual reach" of melee weapon attacks, when considering enemy position, defense level and abilities, direct threat level (OA) and party threat level.
(I won't speak again about magic items potential, because it's too DM-dependent, and too crunchy and power-hungry to my taste in the first place).

The fact that you can be great all-around and switch tactics on the fly with only one feat (Dual Wielder) and one Fighting Style (TWF) makes it largely worthwhile.

With that said, I stand corrected on the interaction between Dual Wielder and Tavern Brawler: I was ignorant of the existence of that tweet by Crawford that clarifies RAI as forbidding TWF with improvised weapons.
That's really a shame imo, but well, what he said. ;)

However, I did forget about another use, although a somewhat niche one: using nets. ;) The fact that creature is automatically restrained on a hit makes it plain better than using a Shove in some cases, mainly because Shove is contested by either Athletics or Acrobatics check, at the choice of the creature (so it will choose the best), while attack rolls against AC are usually the fortes of martials (also since it's technically a weapon attack, it benefits from advantage, Faerie Fire, Bless and the likes).
So it's a nice alternative to Shove against low AC but high evasion targets.;)

[masterstrider]

Not sure if anyone has mentioned it, but you can get two magic weapon effects at the same time as a dual wielder.

Frostbrand/Flame Tongue + Defender would give you a better net effect as a dual wielder than a S&B or 2-hander.

Maybe the intent is that after L11, you get access to better magic items to even out any core rule imbalances. In this way the D&D designers don't have to bean count every single permutation and combination to keep the game perfectly balanced, and can let DM's make "adjustments" with unique and magic items.

MS

[SharkForce]

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...


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.


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.


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.


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).


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


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-*


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.



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.


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).



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.


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.

- if you have some examples of where TWF is superior in actual play that aren't incredibly contrived and improbable, feel free to provide them.

- with TWF you can mix shoves and attacks (just like you can with a shield). you can't mix grapples in, because those require an empty hand, which means you can't have a weapon in the hand. as to better damage, you're not looking at much there; barbarians don't get a fighting style, so by the time you're level 5 or higher we're talking 3d6 + (2xstr mod) + (3xrage bonus) vs 4d6 + (2xstr mod) + (2xrage bonus). cancel out, and we're comparing +1d6 damage (avg 3.5) vs +rage bonus damage.it isn't until level 16 when TWF pulls a whopping half point ahead as your rage bonus is finally worth more than the extra d6 from greatsword. or, you know, eventually pulls ahead, since in the first round the greatsword does 4d6 + 8 while the TWF does 2d6 + 8, so... we're looking at 14 rounds for TWF to break even. except of course that on round 11, TWF will need to use another bonus action to rage again. also, that doesn't count the fact that brutal critical likes bigger dice more than it likes bigger modifiers.

of course, if you want to add in feats, 1:1, a glaive is doing 2d10 + 1d4 + (3xstr mod) + (3xrage bonus) vs 3d8 + (2x str bonus) + (3xrage bonus), or 2d10 + 1d4 + str (average 13.5 + str mod) vs 3d8 (average 13.5). so unless your strength modifier is +0 or negative, the polearm is doing more. lots more on any round where someone moves up to you. TWF is not good for barbarians. it isn't good with zero investment. it isn't good with 1 feat. and it gets worse with 2 feats, if you want to spend that much (which you probably should).

and no, the fact that there are other classes that also can't spend their first bonus action on TWF doesn't make TWF look better. it makes it look worse.

- with no feats, the fighter is averaging ~4.17 per d6 with a greatsword. feel free to do the math, but it isn't going to look good for the TWF fighter if no feats are spent on increasing damage.

- paladins also don't get TWF fighting style. so that improved divine smite advantage? that's +1d8 compared to the difference between doing 4d6 instead of 3d6 per round... unless of course the paladin decides to invest a fighting style in being better at fighting with a two-handed weapon, in which case THF pulls ahead again. TWF is not better at damage here, even if the paladin isn't using a bonus action to smite, or feats to improve damage.

- hunter's mark can last for a long time. by default, it lasts for hours. and you listed it as something that gets better with TWF. as to finding something resilient to use it on.... if enemies are living for so long that your hunter's mark is on the same target for a significant amount of time, your party is doing something horribly wrong. stuff dies quick in 5e. if you aren't losing your bonus action to move hunter's mark every couple of rounds at minimum, you're missing out. and again, it's a minimum 1 hour duration... casting the spell isn't a cost unless you're just not using it because you're too busy telling yourself how awesome TWF is without actually checking to see if it actually is better. which it isn't.

- building to be able to always hide is pretty much trivial for rogues. or, alternately, if it isn't, you probably have no party members, and you aren't getting sneak attack anyways. but, as acknowledged, rogues that want to make no investment in combat whatsoever is the main place where TWF looks good. or at least, where it looks best. too bad it doesn't have any other real niches where it's good.

- you can attack. but since you recommended defensive duelist for someone who was thinking of quarterstaff with polearm master... why would you use the dagger? you've already got a bonus action attack, which already adds attribute without needing a fighting style, and you'd need to further invest a feat for the ability to make a worse attack, because without dual wielder you can't even use the dagger offensively at all. and again, no the feat isn't great at higher level, because at higher level most of the time you're going to be facing a lot more than one attack, and the feat only works against one. and if you are facing a single enemy with a single attack, and that enemy is anything like a significant threat... it probably has been gaining attack bonus just as fast as you've gained proficiency bonus yourself, if not faster, making the feat not really any better at high levels than low levels. rather than investing 2 feats into this, find a better plan.

- improvised weapons are not weapons. they're things that are specifically not weapons which you are using as a weapon anyways. that doesn't make them weapons. you cannot alter reality with your desire to name a thing into something it isn't - i can go collect a bunch of sticks, hand them to a woman, and *insist* that they're flowers because i'm improvising, but that doesn't make the sticks flowers, and it doesn't make a shield a weapon. the entire improvised weapons section goes on and on about how improvised weapons are not weapons. the most generous interpretation possible might allow you to count an object that is sufficiently similar to a weapon to be actually treated as one count for dual wielding, but since the shield does not resemble any actual weapons, no dice there. you can't even treat it as a weapon, so it's just an object that you can grab in one or two hands. specifically: "in many cases, an improvised weapon is similar to an actual weapon and can be treated as such" (as in, normally they aren't actual weapons, and can't be treated as a weapon).

- the greatly increased damage comes from using a superior weapon in the first place. and if you cannot make melee attacks, you can use your interact with object to draw and throw a weapon anyways. or to pull out a ranged weapon and use it. no need for TWF. (incidentally, as far as war magic is concerned... you need an empty hand to cast many spells, so TWF is *definitely* not a good idea there... better to use a style that lets you keep a hand open, like using a two-handed weapon, which will do more damage anyways

TWF doesn't have a niche. it needs one. it isn't good, it's worse than every other option, and while it isn't so much worse as to be unplayable, it shouldn't be worse in the first place. it *should* be equally good, so that a person who chooses TWF for flavour reasons isn't punished mechanically.

[greenstone]

PAM Fighter: 28%
TWF Fighter: 24%

Wow. Is it really that much of a difference?

A polearm master (say a level 10 fighter with a glaive) can do 1d10+STR + 1d10+STR + 1d4+STR per round. Why is that so much higher than a dual wielder (the same fighter with two axes and the two-weapon fighting style) 1d8+str + 1d8+STR + 1d8+STR?

Is the "re-roll 1s and 2s" of the and the great weapon fighting style included in those numbers?

From personal experience, two-weapon fighting feels like you are doing something with your bonus action every single round. Great Weapon Fighting feat only gives you the bonus action every few rounds, so it feels like you've "wasted" your bonus action. Perhaps this is skewing people's opinions?

[miburo]

So, if the two-weapon fighting rule was changed so that it added a single extra offhand attack to the attack action instead of requiring a bonus action, would it become overpowered compared to sword-and-board or great weapon fighters? Keeping in mind you would still need the fighting style for ability score to offhand damage and the feat to use non-light weapons.

[SharkForce]

So, if the two-weapon fighting rule was changed so that it added a single extra offhand attack to the attack action instead of requiring a bonus action, would it become overpowered compared to sword-and-board or great weapon fighters? Keeping in mind you would still need the fighting style for ability score to offhand damage and the feat to use non-light weapons.

i don't think it would help the damage that much as a general thing, except it would help a lot for several of the cases where you'd think it should be best. it would benefit rogues (who would be able to combine it with cunning action), it would help rangers (who would actually be able to make use of their 1 hour or longer hunter's mark to help their damage). it would help TWF barbarians (who would no longer have it competing with activating rage in the first round, and it would especially help berserkers). it would help melee warlocks (hex). it would help slightly for fighters i think (action surge). it would give a rather substantial DPR boost to monks that use it, and i think it might be a little bit overpowered when combined with polearm mastery, however... polearm mastery could probably be "fixed" by requiring two hands for the bonus action attack so that we don't have people dual-wielding a quarterstaff + longsword to get a bonus action attack. not sure how to fix the monk problem (to be clear, the monk problem is not just the DPR increase, which may or may not be something you'd consider a problem, it's the gap that would exist between TWF monks and any other type of monk, such as a monk that uses a quarterstaff in two hands or a monk that fights unarmed). and tbh, there's probably at least one thing i haven't considered yet.

it would certainly at least give TWF a niche though (that niche being "using your bonus action for stuff other than making attacks"). iirc, kryx has done some math to check it out, and it initially didn't look too bad, but i'm not sure how extensive his testing was... there's always something you don't initially think of, after all :P

(then again, i may be thinking of another fix he tried).

[MeeposFire]

I think when I was figuring out my house rule my goal was for TWF to be ahead of sword and shield style but behind GWF by a little bit for the same number of feats. Part of the reason was that I was figuring there should be a slight premium on having more attacks because that means in many cases most buffs and other abilities get added more because of that. As a simple example hex gets better the more attacks you ahve and since in my version TWF has more attacks than anything else (it had one more attack with no feats and still one more attack with one feat) I figured that gave it a potential boost that not directly accounted for in the base numbers it should at least be kept in mind.

Not really sure how close my attempt gets there (trying to compute the value adding things to opportunity attacks is the sort of thing I do value in the analysis of somebody like Kryx since he does try to account for those things).

Personally though I think the bigger flaw in TWF is the annoying way it interacts with the action economy and how it prevents it from working with a bunch of things and many of which it should work with (why is it the only style that does not get to work with hunters mark on the first turn it is activated and every time you need to move it when the class that primarilly gets that spell is supposed to be one of the main TWF classes?) and in general it is the only style restricted in such a fashion. That makes TWF feel clunky and really hurts it use. As another example it is the only style that does not work in conjunction with war magic and is the only stye where that is true on a basic level.

[lperkins2]

So, anyone stop to consider that TWF shouldn't be particularly effective? There's a reason no one really tried it on a battlefield, most commonly you'd see it when someone wasn't expecting a fight, and the second weapon would be a dagger, used mostly for defence. That pretty well went away with the invention of the buckler, because a buckler is almost as easy to carry around as a dagger, and so much more effective for protecting you. It might be better to have another weapon in your off hand, if you think it likely that you will lose your weapon, but even then, the second weapon is heavy, and attacking with both at once is almost impossible (you can't lunge in two directions at once). The best case for holding a weapon in your off hand is if you have a pistol, which you can use when you encounter a significantly better swordsman. TWF is worse than using a shield, or than using a two handed weapon, except for some rogues, and maybe a paladin who wants to dump all his spell slots into smite, quickly. This is as it should be, since TWF just doesn't work well physically.

That said, the TWF feat or fighting style should probably have provided a bonus to AC rather than more damage.

[Boci]

So, anyone stop to consider that TWF shouldn't be particularly effective? There's a reason no one really tried it on a battlefield

This was discussed earlier, my opinion at least is in heroic fantasy game that isn't particularly realistic about its weaponry, your fighting style being viable is more important than historical realism. If you want that, another game is probably better.

[djreynolds]

The issue isn't TWF is bad... its just PAM is better for strength based combatants as is doesn't require TWF style

The issue with PAM is... really there are not many magic polearms in game... unless your DM decides otherwise

TWF is "best" with a dex build, preferably multiclassed with fighter/ranger/rogue

[SharkForce]

The issue isn't TWF is bad... its just PAM is better for strength based combatants as is doesn't require TWF style

The issue with PAM is... really there are not many magic polearms in game... unless your DM decides otherwise

TWF is "best" with a dex build, preferably multiclassed with fighter/ranger/rogue

the assumption that the DMG doesn't list many polearms in the magic section, therefore there are none, doesn't sit all that well with me. it presumes that the DMG is a comprehensive listing, or at the least a representative sample, and while that might work for some settings, it certainly isn't going to work for all settings.

i mean, if you're playing in AL, i suppose it's something to consider. or if your DM keeps things firmly on rails and doesn't use anything that isn't officially published, so you can't go exploring to find a magical polearm.

but even without polearm mastery, two-handed weapons generally look better for damage, sword & board looks better for defense, and TWF only looks better for rogues that don't want to invest in a combat style at all.

[djreynolds]

the assumption that the DMG doesn't list many polearms in the magic section, therefore there are none, doesn't sit all that well with me. it presumes that the DMG is a comprehensive listing, or at the least a representative sample, and while that might work for some settings, it certainly isn't going to work for all settings.

i mean, if you're playing in AL, i suppose it's something to consider. or if your DM keeps things firmly on rails and doesn't use anything that isn't officially published, so you can't go exploring to find a magical polearm.

but even without polearm mastery, two-handed weapons generally look better for damage, sword & board looks better for defense, and TWF only looks better for rogues that don't want to invest in a combat style at all.

Its the only drawback that I can find for PAM, I have to write something negative. The only negative for PAM is you may not possibly find a magic polearm

You don't even need war caster with PAM, you do with TWF and S&B for arcane casting

But for magic weapons it seems versatile are popular.

TWF is best for dex based PCs, who have a dash of rogue or perhaps a barbarian in a featless game

[Zalabim]

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.

If you're already a mounted combatant (whether you have the feat or that's just the description you'd use) taking Dual Wielder for double lances is a niche that's hard to beat.

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.

It does bear highlighting that TWF is the only offensive PHB style that doesn't interact with extra attack at all. If the TWF fighting style also gave a damage bonus on each attack, it could still have the bonus action attack, but it would also work better with extra(extra) attacks, giant killer, horde breaker, whirlwind attack, and opportunity attacks in general than it does now, without being any worse with Hunter's Mark, Sneak Attack, or Colossus Slayer. TWF suffers from having a poor TWF fighting style and a poor TWF feat.

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

It'd be an option if that barbarian happens to be mounted for an encounter. Then a lance and a shield competes with a greataxe, but there's a big opportunity cost in not choosing the Heavy weapon, too.

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.

I usually phrase it as the more class features you're putting into fighting with weapons, the less you benefit from TWF.

However, I did forget about another use, although a somewhat niche one: using nets. ;) The fact that creature is automatically restrained on a hit makes it plain better than using a Shove in some cases, mainly because Shove is contested by either Athletics or Acrobatics check, at the choice of the creature (so it will choose the best), while attack rolls against AC are usually the fortes of martials (also since it's technically a weapon attack, it benefits from advantage, Faerie Fire, Bless and the likes).
So it's a nice alternative to Shove against low AC but high evasion targets.;)

I consider Nets to be combat maneuvers for Dex combatants, but it doesn't have anything to do with TWF, since they're ranged weapons. They work with Crossbow Expert though, since a net is one-handed.

Wow. Is it really that much of a difference?

A polearm master (say a level 10 fighter with a glaive) can do 1d10+STR + 1d10+STR + 1d4+STR per round. Why is that so much higher than a dual wielder (the same fighter with two axes and the two-weapon fighting style) 1d8+str + 1d8+STR + 1d8+STR?

Is the "re-roll 1s and 2s" of the and the great weapon fighting style included in those numbers?

The difference is more in the reaction attack, in this case, but the fighting style is contributing a little as well.

So, if the two-weapon fighting rule was changed so that it added a single extra offhand attack to the attack action instead of requiring a bonus action, would it become overpowered compared to sword-and-board or great weapon fighters? Keeping in mind you would still need the fighting style for ability score to offhand damage and the feat to use non-light weapons.

It would be better for rogues using cunning action, clerics using spiritual weapon, rangers using hunter's mark, barbarians using their bonus action options (rage, eagle 3, wolf 14, berserker 3), fighters using action surge and second wind to a small extent. I don't think it'd be overpowered on barbarians, but it could have a noticeable effect on weapon selection for classes that don't get extra attack, particularly if they don't get shield proficiency either, and a very negligible effect on Fighters while having a substantial effect on rangers.

The core issue here is that I don't think the designers wanted TWF to make using two simple weapons the "strongest" option for unskilled combatants without having some sort of tradeoff, and that's why it takes a bonus action. If you have no other features to speak of, two hand axes would be the same damage as a greatsword, but simpler weapon proficiency and able to be thrown. Double daggers compared to a rapier is a little similar. Then depending on the features, like divine strike or sneak attack, the option that gives more attacks would be preferred again. The issues for fighters and rangers and the rest might've cascaded from there, or come from a similar sentiment. TWF has memetic popularity, so we(the designers) don't want to also make it always the best. It's hard to balance in between all these competing goals.

[Cybren]

One of my big problems with TWF: Without the feat you can use two light weapons. With the feat you can use two one handed weapons. Other than specific magic item combos, there's no real reason to use One hander + light offhand

[Rogerdodger557]

If you're already a mounted combatant (whether you have the feat or that's just the description you'd use) taking Dual Wielder for double lances is a niche that's hard to beat.

Oh my god. I didn't even think of this. I will need to use this as soon as I can.

[jas61292]

One of my big problems with TWF: Without the feat you can use two light weapons. With the feat you can use two one handed weapons. Other than specific magic item combos, there's no real reason to use One hander + light offhand

Arguably, light + one handed is actually the best option. Yes, it comes out a bit behind in damage, but losing one point of damage per round (or two for a Dex TWF guy) is well worth it to have a thrown weapon, and thus range. Pure DPS is never as important as options.

[Cybren]

Arguably, light + one handed is actually the best option. Yes, it comes out a bit behind in damage, but losing one point of damage per round (or two for a Dex TWF guy) is well worth it to have a thrown weapon, and thus range. Pure DPS is never as important as options.

Sure, but then you get into things like "fencing daggers weren't really throwing weapons" and "that's not why it was used". The off-hand weapon being defensive is sort of represented in the Dual Wielder feats +1 AC, but I wonder what would change if you made the TWF fighting style the Defensive Duelist feat, changing the requirement to having two weapons equipped...

[Rogerdodger557]

Sure, but then you get into things like "fencing daggers weren't really throwing weapons" and "that's not why it was used". The off-hand weapon being defensive is sort of represented in the Dual Wielder feats +1 AC, but I wonder what would change if you made the TWF fighting style the Defensive Duelist feat, changing the requirement to having two weapons equipped...

Not sort of. I only get the +1 AC from the feat when I have a weapon in my off hand.

[Cybren]

Not sort of. I only get the +1 AC from the feat when I have a weapon in my off hand.

i'm saying sort of because it's a weird design that makes it passive

[N810]

... Still waiting for some one to mention Swashbuckler,
the class is kina built around the idea of dual wielding.

[Cybren]

... Still waiting for some one to mention Swashbuckler,
the class is kina built around the idea of dual wielding.

There aren't even bucklers in this edition, and in 3.5 they didn't even have buckler proficiency. That's almost as bad as how Parry and Riposte don't have any synergy in 5e.

[N810]

... yes I realize the class name is a bit of a misnomer but stay with me here,
it's not like you ever see anyone using bucklers in the olde swashbuckler movies anyway.
(think Zorro, Princess Bride, or or any move with Erol Flynn in it. )

[Easy_Lee]

... Still waiting for some one to mention Swashbuckler,
the class is kina built around the idea of dual wielding.

Not really. It might be fluffed that way, but there's no need to TWF and plenty of reason not to do it.

[Cybren]

... yes I realize the class name is a bit of a misnomer but stay with me here,
it's not like you ever see anyone using bucklers in the olde swashbuckler movies anyway.
(think Zorro, Princess Bride, or or any move with Erol Flynn in it. )

Don't get me started how "barbarian" makes no sense as a term in a world without Greek speakers!

[Citan]

Spoiler: SPoilered for length

Show

- if you have some examples of where TWF is superior in actual play that aren't incredibly contrived and improbable, feel free to provide them.

- with TWF you can mix shoves and attacks (just like you can with a shield). you can't mix grapples in, because those require an empty hand, which means you can't have a weapon in the hand. as to better damage, you're not looking at much there; barbarians don't get a fighting style, so by the time you're level 5 or higher we're talking 3d6 + (2xstr mod) + (3xrage bonus) vs 4d6 + (2xstr mod) + (2xrage bonus). cancel out, and we're comparing +1d6 damage (avg 3.5) vs +rage bonus damage.it isn't until level 16 when TWF pulls a whopping half point ahead as your rage bonus is finally worth more than the extra d6 from greatsword. or, you know, eventually pulls ahead, since in the first round the greatsword does 4d6 + 8 while the TWF does 2d6 + 8, so... we're looking at 14 rounds for TWF to break even. except of course that on round 11, TWF will need to use another bonus action to rage again. also, that doesn't count the fact that brutal critical likes bigger dice more than it likes bigger modifiers.

of course, if you want to add in feats, 1:1, a glaive is doing 2d10 + 1d4 + (3xstr mod) + (3xrage bonus) vs 3d8 + (2x str bonus) + (3xrage bonus), or 2d10 + 1d4 + str (average 13.5 + str mod) vs 3d8 (average 13.5). so unless your strength modifier is +0 or negative, the polearm is doing more. lots more on any round where someone moves up to you. TWF is not good for barbarians. it isn't good with zero investment. it isn't good with 1 feat. and it gets worse with 2 feats, if you want to spend that much (which you probably should).

and no, the fact that there are other classes that also can't spend their first bonus action on TWF doesn't make TWF look better. it makes it look worse.

- with no feats, the fighter is averaging ~4.17 per d6 with a greatsword. feel free to do the math, but it isn't going to look good for the TWF fighter if no feats are spent on increasing damage.

- paladins also don't get TWF fighting style. so that improved divine smite advantage? that's +1d8 compared to the difference between doing 4d6 instead of 3d6 per round... unless of course the paladin decides to invest a fighting style in being better at fighting with a two-handed weapon, in which case THF pulls ahead again. TWF is not better at damage here, even if the paladin isn't using a bonus action to smite, or feats to improve damage.

- hunter's mark can last for a long time. by default, it lasts for hours. and you listed it as something that gets better with TWF. as to finding something resilient to use it on.... if enemies are living for so long that your hunter's mark is on the same target for a significant amount of time, your party is doing something horribly wrong. stuff dies quick in 5e. if you aren't losing your bonus action to move hunter's mark every couple of rounds at minimum, you're missing out. and again, it's a minimum 1 hour duration... casting the spell isn't a cost unless you're just not using it because you're too busy telling yourself how awesome TWF is without actually checking to see if it actually is better. which it isn't.

- building to be able to always hide is pretty much trivial for rogues. or, alternately, if it isn't, you probably have no party members, and you aren't getting sneak attack anyways. but, as acknowledged, rogues that want to make no investment in combat whatsoever is the main place where TWF looks good. or at least, where it looks best. too bad it doesn't have any other real niches where it's good.

- you can attack. but since you recommended defensive duelist for someone who was thinking of quarterstaff with polearm master... why would you use the dagger? you've already got a bonus action attack, which already adds attribute without needing a fighting style, and you'd need to further invest a feat for the ability to make a worse attack, because without dual wielder you can't even use the dagger offensively at all. and again, no the feat isn't great at higher level, because at higher level most of the time you're going to be facing a lot more than one attack, and the feat only works against one. and if you are facing a single enemy with a single attack, and that enemy is anything like a significant threat... it probably has been gaining attack bonus just as fast as you've gained proficiency bonus yourself, if not faster, making the feat not really any better at high levels than low levels. rather than investing 2 feats into this, find a better plan.

- improvised weapons are not weapons. they're things that are specifically not weapons which you are using as a weapon anyways. that doesn't make them weapons. you cannot alter reality with your desire to name a thing into something it isn't - i can go collect a bunch of sticks, hand them to a woman, and *insist* that they're flowers because i'm improvising, but that doesn't make the sticks flowers, and it doesn't make a shield a weapon. the entire improvised weapons section goes on and on about how improvised weapons are not weapons. the most generous interpretation possible might allow you to count an object that is sufficiently similar to a weapon to be actually treated as one count for dual wielding, but since the shield does not resemble any actual weapons, no dice there. you can't even treat it as a weapon, so it's just an object that you can grab in one or two hands. specifically: "in many cases, an improvised weapon is similar to an actual weapon and can be treated as such" (as in, normally they aren't actual weapons, and can't be treated as a weapon).

- the greatly increased damage comes from using a superior weapon in the first place. and if you cannot make melee attacks, you can use your interact with object to draw and throw a weapon anyways. or to pull out a ranged weapon and use it. no need for TWF. (incidentally, as far as war magic is concerned... you need an empty hand to cast many spells, so TWF is *definitely* not a good idea there... better to use a style that lets you keep a hand open, like using a two-handed weapon, which will do more damage anyways

TWF doesn't have a niche. it needs one. it isn't good, it's worse than every other option, and while it isn't so much worse as to be unplayable, it shouldn't be worse in the first place. it *should* be equally good, so that a person who chooses TWF for flavour reasons isn't punished mechanically.

Look, you obviously don't even try to understand, you just want to "be right". That's why, among other thing you carefully avoid the points you have no argument against and pull some dubious hypothesis as a fact ("if creatures last so long that Hunter's Mark lasts several turns your party is doing something horribly wrong" -or you just never faced really hard encounters, or you always get an optimal party composition and tactics-, "building to be able to hide always is pretty trivial for a Rogue" -apart from a Lightfoot Halfling Arcane Trickster, this is a plain dream-).

So, then, be right by all means, even if the facts wrong you: in practice dual-wielding is far better than on paper, because paper calculations are a very poor and incomplete simulation of everything that has to be considered as a factor in any given encounter.

Just three things.

1. You CAN GRAPPLE while dual-wield: take Extra Attack action while using a thrown weapon as the first attack, now you have a free hand to Grapple as your second attack, and then make your bonus action weapon attack. Per RAW, PHB only requires you to make a melee weapon attack when you take the Attack action to enable the benefit, not keeping the melee weapon used at first the whole way. In fact, it writes black on white that you can use a thrown weapon to make a ranged attack and still enable the benefit.

2. Dual Wielder + Defensive Duelist: why would you wield only a dagger? Rapier is 1d8 and finesse, so it's 1d4 better than the bonus action provided by Polearm Master (and I'm talking about a build that starting two-weapon fighting so obviously it took the relevant style), and IF ONLY you took it (if you didn't read everything in diagonal, you would have seen that I made two different hypothesis, one with Polearm Master, one without).

3. TWF has a niche. It has several in fact:
- On a STR martial with Extra Attack, providing immediate flexibility between Shove/Grapple/Melee attack/Ranged attack while keeping armed in-between rounds. Meaning easier positioning and easier switch between defense and offense (which a two-hander just cannot do). For example when you'd like to try and harm several enemies while being able to return to a "control point" to protect your allies.
- On martials with good one-handed attack, getting a good way to restrain people without bothering with Grappling (Dual Wielder + nets).
- On a gish or caster build, stacking different magical weapons which each provide specific abilities (like a quarterstaff focus providing spells, and a weapon dealing bonus damage against fiends) or stacking abilities (like two staffs giving bonus to spell DC).
- On any class that has some nova ability, enabling higher chance or better result for that nova (Eldricht Strike, Sneak Attack, Smites).

Overall, TWF and Dual Wielder provides together the perfect middle ground between S&B and Two-handed and will thus shine in any situation where you go against very difficult to hit, or very dangerous to come close or just unreachable creatures, as well as giving you a better chance to make use of any magical weapon instead of having to make tough choices when coming across a new one that is not strictly better than your current, just different in use.

[Willie the Duck]

Its the only drawback that I can find for PAM, I have to write something negative. The only negative for PAM is you may not possibly find a magic polearm

It's putting your eggs in a specific basket. How much this matters is going to be very campaign/DM dependent. I certainly don't consider it a good way of balancing the weapons.

So, anyone stop to consider that TWF shouldn't be particularly effective? There's a reason no one really tried it on a battlefield, most commonly you'd see it when someone wasn't expecting a fight, and the second weapon would be a dagger, used mostly for defence...<etc.>

And pikes would be practically useless in the situations adventurers regularly fight, and one-handed staves are just barely plausible so long as you don't also use a shield or try to hit with both ends (via PAM), and in 3rd edition one of the best weapons was the scythe (and let's not even get into how you would wield a dire flail or spiked chain...). If we were to suddenly decide that realism was the most important concern regarding weapons, well, we've that's the complete opposite direction than the way D&D has been moving for years (well, 3e might have been the farthest spike, but OD&D/1e was much more concerned with things like specific weapon vs. specific armor/situation, and we've been moving roughly away since).

... Still waiting for some one to mention Swashbuckler,
the class is kina built around the idea of dual wielding.

It has been repeatedly mentioned that melee rogues are the primary beneficiaries of twf, so I assume this was just a little too-specific for anyone to feel they had to bother bringing up.

[Naanomi]

Best defense of TWF:

I have a player who wanted to play a drow eldritch knight who dual wielded whips... I started to explain that was totally cool but don't get upset if it doesn't hold up mechanically

Her response: 'that's ok, I already painted this cool miniature with two whips'

Who am I to argue?

[lperkins2]

This was discussed earlier, my opinion at least is in heroic fantasy game that isn't particularly realistic about its weaponry, your fighting style being viable is more important than historical realism. If you want that, another game is probably better.

This is certainly true, since D&D has always sucked on the combat realism front. The question is how far to take it, mechanically? I think most people would agree that the fighting style needs to be at least superficially plausible, or it shouldn't work well mechanically.

Part of the reason for this is that the real world informs our expectations of how things work. Obviously, the rules are simplified, and sometimes don't line up with the real world at all, but it is the general case.

When you see a peasant charging you wielding a pillow, you don't expect the pillow to have the same damage output as a greatsword, so a character whose 'fighting style' involves hitting people with pillows shouldn't expect to have the same damage output as someone using almost anything else.

Point is, TWF is far better mechanically than we should expect, and has a strong niche for anyone who needs to be able to deliver at least one successful weapon attack a round (rogue being the obvious choice; or the v2 mystic, who could use a second lethal strike with the offhand attack).