Why all the hate on dual wielding?

[GlenSmash!]

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?

I'm no math wiz, but I think it's in part due to the fact that Polearm Master doesn't just give a Bonus action attack, but also a very reliable Reaction attack as well.

[Submortimer]

2:
I'm playing this character not for roll playing, but for roleplaying. You know, what D&D should be. I wanted to have fun.

Woah, calm down there with the Wrongbadfun. You came in and asked why TWF gets hate, people are giving you the answer. No one hates on TWF because of thematics, they hate on it because it is MECHANICALLY INFERIOR in basically every way to GWM and Sword and Board.

[Willie the Duck]

Woah, calm down there with the Wrongbadfun. You came in and asked why TWF gets hate, people are giving you the answer. No one hates on TWF because of thematics, they hate on it because it is MECHANICALLY INFERIOR in basically every way to GWM and Sword and Board.

Look, Anyone who pulls a "I'm role-playing, not roll-playing" probably deserves a bit of a verbal whipping, (and a bus ticket back to 1996, when that phrase was even remotely considered respect-worthy), but that was post #20 out of 151 before you. You didn't wait to read the other 131 where he repeatedly clarified his position?

[SharkForce]

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.

1) so after having super-invested into dual-wielding, you are also going to invest heavily into being unable to use dual-wielding. this is not sound reasoning. the moment you start grappling is the moment you stop being able to dual-wield; if you want to be a grappler, then you don't invest in TWF, you invest in a single versatile weapon with probably the dueling or defense style. you don't invest 3 feats that work against each other.

2) so you're investing your fighting style *and* a feat to get +1 AC and +2 average damage once per round? if i just went with polearm master and a glaive, and spend fighting style on defense, i have the same AC, and equal damage (or possibly better damage later on). plus i probably get a couple of reaction attacks per fight. plus i don't have to justify to anyone how i'm using a staff in one hand and a rapier in the other, which would look stupid, so there's another bonus; fewer arguments with the DM, and i feel less ridiculous while playing the character.

3)
- the THF fighter can throw stuff with one hand while holding their main weapon in the other hand. so that really isn't exclusive to TWF.
- nets are ranged weapons. not melee. TWF requires melee weapons.
- there aren't two staffs that give bonus to DC (actually, i don't think there's even one), but if there were, you wouldn't need to fight with both of them because spell DC is only useful when casting spells (as to one for casting, one for hitting things... you do realise you can switch weapons, right?). in any event, if your argument hinges on "maybe you'll somehow obtain a very specific pair of legendary magic items, and your party will let you have all of them, and you have the attunement slots available, therefore you should build for that possibility", then i don't really feel the need to spend much time countering it. it has already countered itself.
- the thing is, there are better ways of enabling those things. the paladin could use the standard polearm mastery option to free up a fighting style, get a reaction attack (oh look, *another* chance to smite, which you just said was awesome), and do more damage (no TWF fighting style, remember?). if the AC bonus is important, pick defense style. eldritch strike and sneak attack are both better supported by crossbow expert (the fighter will get a fighting style to put elsewhere (probably into hitting more often) and is making ranged attacks, the rogue gets range and gets to add attribute damage which is basically like a free fighting style... i mean, it's the worst of the fighting styles, but it still comes free with a feat that was already good). this particular TWF niche is occupied by other things which fill the same niche, only better, with the exception of the rogue that doesn't want to invest at all. again, the fighting style shouldn't be only good for one class that is specifically not investing in fighting.


against difficult-to-hit enemies, THF just stops using power attack. their damage is basically identical to the TWF build without it. very slightly higher in most cases if they crit, though. meanwhile, they enjoy much better damage against targets that aren't hard to hit, or targets that used to be hard to hit until they made the target not as hard to hit.

against creatures you don't want to get close to, guess which weapons have reach? if that isn't enough, guess who can also throw stuff while holding their main weapon in one hand. meanwhile, in addition to being as good in these situations, they're better in every other situation.

if your party has so many legendary weapons that you literally can't use them all at once, i don't consider that a problem. you can still switch between them. or, since apparently magic items are actually pretty common in the world you're playing in, you can just trade one in for something else that you actually need, instead of having more weapons than you know what to do with. this is like worrying that as you're walking along armed with your regular long sword, you might also find a regular warhammer, and *then* how are you supposed to decide what to use?

[Submortimer]

Look, Anyone who pulls a "I'm role-playing, not roll-playing" probably deserves a bit of a verbal whipping, (and a bus ticket back to 1996, when that phrase was even remotely considered respect-worthy), but that was post #20 out of 151 before you. You didn't wait to read the other 131 where he repeatedly clarified his position?

I actually didn't notice that the thread was 5 pages long before I posted, so yeah, that was my bad.

I stand by my position, repeat clarification or not.

Edit: Also, having read through all the posts here, I'm fine leaving my post as-is. He asked a question, multiple people gave him the answer, he countered with "well people should Role-play not Roll-play", and that's never an acceptable attitude to have about this game.

[Knaight]

Woah, calm down there with the Wrongbadfun. You came in and asked why TWF gets hate, people are giving you the answer. No one hates on TWF because of thematics, they hate on it because it is MECHANICALLY INFERIOR in basically every way to GWM and Sword and Board.

Plenty of people dislike the thematics, at least in the context of it being an effective battlefield style.

[Boci]

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.

That just, not useful. Its so exaggerated it loses any potential to contribute to the conversation other than comedic effect.

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).

1. I'm not entirely sure this is true, not only it is potential overestimating how much a lot of players understand mideval weaponry, but grappling a bear and other such monster really shouldn't work that well, and yet its a solid tactic. There are loads more examples.

2. If two-weapon fighting is a fighter style option, shouldn't its niche include a use for the fighter?

[Willie the Duck]

I actually didn't notice that the thread was 5 pages long before I posted, so yeah, that was my bad.

I stand by my position, repeat clarification or not.

Edit: Also, having read through all the posts here, I'm fine leaving my post as-is. He asked a question, multiple people gave him the answer, he countered with "well people should Role-play not Roll-play", and that's never an acceptable attitude to have about this game.

Okay, true. He did eat some crow about his attitude though, so I guess I thought he should credit or something.

[Citan]

1) so after having super-invested into dual-wielding, you are also going to invest heavily into being unable to use dual-wielding. this is not sound reasoning. the moment you start grappling is the moment you stop being able to dual-wield; if you want to be a grappler, then you don't invest in TWF, you invest in a single versatile weapon with probably the dueling or defense style. you don't invest 3 feats that work against each other.

2) so you're investing your fighting style *and* a feat to get +1 AC and +2 average damage once per round? if i just went with polearm master and a glaive, and spend fighting style on defense, i have the same AC, and equal damage (or possibly better damage later on). plus i probably get a couple of reaction attacks per fight. plus i don't have to justify to anyone how i'm using a staff in one hand and a rapier in the other, which would look stupid, so there's another bonus; fewer arguments with the DM, and i feel less ridiculous while playing the character.

3)
- the THF fighter can throw stuff with one hand while holding their main weapon in the other hand. so that really isn't exclusive to TWF.
- nets are ranged weapons. not melee. TWF requires melee weapons.
- there aren't two staffs that give bonus to DC (actually, i don't think there's even one), but if there were, you wouldn't need to fight with both of them because spell DC is only useful when casting spells (as to one for casting, one for hitting things... you do realise you can switch weapons, right?). in any event, if your argument hinges on "maybe you'll somehow obtain a very specific pair of legendary magic items, and your party will let you have all of them, and you have the attunement slots available, therefore you should build for that possibility", then i don't really feel the need to spend much time countering it. it has already countered itself.
- the thing is, there are better ways of enabling those things. the paladin could use the standard polearm mastery option to free up a fighting style, get a reaction attack (oh look, *another* chance to smite, which you just said was awesome), and do more damage (no TWF fighting style, remember?). if the AC bonus is important, pick defense style. eldritch strike and sneak attack are both better supported by crossbow expert (the fighter will get a fighting style to put elsewhere (probably into hitting more often) and is making ranged attacks, the rogue gets range and gets to add attribute damage which is basically like a free fighting style... i mean, it's the worst of the fighting styles, but it still comes free with a feat that was already good). this particular TWF niche is occupied by other things which fill the same niche, only better, with the exception of the rogue that doesn't want to invest at all. again, the fighting style shouldn't be only good for one class that is specifically not investing in fighting.


against difficult-to-hit enemies, THF just stops using power attack. their damage is basically identical to the TWF build without it. very slightly higher in most cases if they crit, though. meanwhile, they enjoy much better damage against targets that aren't hard to hit, or targets that used to be hard to hit until they made the target not as hard to hit.

against creatures you don't want to get close to, guess which weapons have reach? if that isn't enough, guess who can also throw stuff while holding their main weapon in one hand. meanwhile, in addition to being as good in these situations, they're better in every other situation.

if your party has so many legendary weapons that you literally can't use them all at once, i don't consider that a problem. you can still switch between them. or, since apparently magic items are actually pretty common in the world you're playing in, you can just trade one in for something else that you actually need, instead of having more weapons than you know what to do with. this is like worrying that as you're walking along armed with your regular long sword, you might also find a regular warhammer, and *then* how are you supposed to decide what to use?

1. First, I don't WANT to BE a grappler. I want to have the ABILITY to Grapple when I see fit without hampering too much my attack power. A Two-hander just can't do it. At all. Because he needs both hands to attack. A S&B could do it at the price of sheating his weapon, making him powerless as long as he grapples (because donning shield on/off takes time). A guy that always keep a hand free is obviously as good, but then he doesn't get bonus action.
TWF gives you the choice to grapple when it's a good tactical choice.
Second, what 3 feats? TWF is available to any character. One that wants decent damage will just take the Fighting Style. A hardcore optimized would also grab the Dual Wielder feat. Nothing else.

2. "Using staff and rapier, which looks stupid", well, go say that to Gandalf would you? That's the lamest argument that ever was born from your fingers, and that's a strong thing to say. To each his taste. Beyond that, no it's not just for +1 AC and +2 damage: it's to get +1 AC, +2 damage, use a better finesse weapon (many of the best magic weapons are not daggers) for attacks or just defense while still getting all the benefits of a quarterstaff (focus, potential magic, potential Polearm Master -which, incidentally, does NOT require you to make the OA with it to benefit from the second benefit, so great for any DEX build including first and foremost Arcane Trickster).

3.
- Good catch about net, wonder how I missed that.

- Bad catch about THF: per PHB, "you could draw your weapon as part of the action you use to attack". ONE free interaction. The other one requires your action. So as said, THF can only ever make one ranged attack per turn at most. S&B can do better if he goes Hoplite style, using only javelins, otherwise same problem.

- My bad about staff bonuses, I mixed up staves (which power up spell attacks) and rods (which power up spell saves). Doesn't change things though: just wielding two staffs that cover different roles is a great way to expand your efficiency (like two different resistances) or options (like one offensive staff and one healing staff), and there are many good ones that are "only" rares. Same with weapons.

- And no, you cannot switch weapons. You can use one free interaction per turn, top. Next one costs an action. You wield Weapon A. You want to wield Weapon B. Turn 1: sheathe Weapon A. Now either waste your turn drawing Weapon B, or do something directly contributing like a spell or cantrip or making an unarmed strike (lol). Turn 2: unsheathe Weapon B, use it.
For a caster that has a focus quarterstaff and a normal weapon, technically he can (AFAIK) wield both, he just won't benefit from the additional attack, the quarterstaff is just considered a plain object wielded in off-hand ("just a focus"). But many casters don't care about extra attack (or any attack at all) anyways so that's not a problem, because they often won't even wield another weapon, except a finesse one dedicated to Defensive Duelist anyways.
For martials however (or casters which have decent to good weapon attacks), that can be a problem. Confer point above.

- As for your Paladin example: remember what you said about quarterstaff and sword being "stupid"? The same could be said about quarterstaff and shield, except worse (remember all those discussion around here about being able to get bonus action from PAM while having a shield extremely weird even for a fantasy world?)? Also it pretty much nails the Paladin to a one and only single weapon: quarterstaff (if shield) or glaive/halberd (if not).
You'd like finesse because you want a tanky Paladin? No can do.
You found a very tempting Sun Blade? Too bad you now have to choose between better reaction or better damage.
Your party found a Staff of the Woodlands? Well, you'll have a hard time arguing that it's better fit on you than on your caster pal (especially Warlock or Wizard).
You are fighting flyers? Good luck throwing your halberd XD. You are suddenly reduced to one attack per turn.

- As for to-hit: of course against difficult enemies a two-handed fighter would stop using the extra risk / extra damage benefit, unless he's really stupid. That does not change the fact you can still miss. Polearm Master covers that by providing an always-on bonus action, but it's another feat to take. S&B is wasted whatever happens because he doesn't have a way to gain another weapon attack (because of -sad and stupid IMO- Crawford ruling telling by RAI Dual Wielder cannot combine with improvised weapons, even with Tavern Brawler -that's the part I find stupid, because you made effort to become as good with any object as with named weapons but anyways-).
Two-weapon fighting is an "always possible, never forced" bonus action attack that doesn't require any investment strictly speaking, although taking either the Style or the Feat at least is obviously a significant increase, and both even better.
At level 20, you have a good chance to hit even highest AC when properly optimized. But from level 1-11, when proficiency bonus is low and your attack stat grows slowly from 16 to 20, it's another matter entirely. I regularly see two players of one of my game, with optimized stats for level 4 (18 attack, +2 Archery and Sharpshooter for one ranged guy) miss attacks against 13 or 14 AC. Like, really regularly (ranged guy misses ~1/3 attacks when it should be 1/4, melee tend to miss 1/2 attacks when it should be more towards 1/3). Only thing is, my ranged guy can just cry when he missed because it's basically a wasted turn, while my melee guy connects at least its second attack most of the time. It's not just a matter of "perceived thing", but really some kind of trend we all could see. Of course it will get better once both of them gets another attack, but that doesn't change the problem. Doesn't matter if when cumulating all the rolls you made statistics and probabilities find their way back. Having yet another attack when your usual ones failed is great. As well as having another one because the previous did connect, but you got poor damage rolls and thus failed to finish off your target. :)

[SharkForce]

if you're using two weapons (one in each hand) and not fighting with them, that isn't two-weapon fighting being good.

- a THF grappler just needs to carry a backup weapon. but seriously, if you're going to plan on grappling regularly, you don't pick TWF or THF. you get yourself a single longsword. if you're not planning on grappling regularly, you don't need to go out of your way to use a subpar combat style, just carry a spare weapon and drop the one you decided not to use if it was already out. the feats where the three you suggested yourself... specifically:

- 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.

so don't come complaining to me about three feats, you're the one who proposed it.

- gandalf looks ridiculous and awkward when he actually tries to use both weapons. which is pretty bad, considering this is even in a movie where they get to control everything to try their hardest to make it look cool. in any event, staff + rapier is terrible for an arcane trickster. it probably has something to do with staff not being finesse, which means that bonus action is being spent for a whopping 1d6 damage. no attribute bonus, no sneak attack. if the rogue does plan on using a feat, crossbow expert keeps one hand empty (except when you're reloading) anyways, and gets to sneak attack with either attack, from range, and has a hand free to use a spell component pouch.

- i didn't suggest the paladin go quarterstaff and shield. i said use a glaive. and since you're apparently talking about a finesse paladin, they don't need +1 AC from dual wielding, they just have it from their armour being better in the first place.

- you were getting one free ranged attack with a dagger. THF can match that. if you wish to suggest that TWF is better at throwing multiple daggers per round, i suppose i'm not going to argue with you, but if your DM isn't ignoring the silly rule that screws thrown weapons for no good reason, neither should use daggers for extended situations, they should use a bow (and yes, that is true even for the strength fighter. bounded accuracy means that bow is perfectly fine, even without a +5 dex bonus).

- if your party finds a sun blade, and nobody can use it... exchange it for something else. or use it if and when it becomes necessary (like that secondary weapon i recommended for THF characters, which the sunblade fits just fine).

- if you find a staff of the woodlands and you can't figure out if it's better for the paladin or the warlock or the wizard, let me help you: "Requires attunement by a druid". problem solved, it sucks for all of them. trade it for something else.

- fighting flyers? well, i'm sure dual-wielding a sun blade and an unattuned staff of the woodlands will help you there. here's what you really want: a bow, or something that lets you fly. either will do. obviously, the bow is easier to find. but lobbing daggers round after round isn't a solution either.

- except the statistics do matter, and it *is* a matter of perception. the THF will still be dealing more damage overall. yes, missing sucks. you can fixate on that and choose a style that works worse overall but lets you make more attacks to try and hit after you miss, or you can take the style that (might) have fewer attacks, and then just hit hard enough that it makes up for not having that extra attack. "i'm making a suboptimal choice because i like it" does not mean the suboptimal choice is not suboptimal, nor is there any compelling reason that it should be.


i have no problem with people wanting to use two weapons because it feels better, or because they think it's cool. they can choose it. but i don't think their desire to use two weapons is a compelling reason to saddle them with a mechanical penalty. there is no particular reason they shouldn't be allowed to use a pair of short swords (or whatever they prefer) *and* be just as effective as the guy who picked the higher damage fighting style of THF, who has made the same decision to not use a shield in favour of superior offense. except the THF guy actually got superior offense, while the TWF guy is struggling (and failing) to keep up with sword and board by level 5, whether feats are in play or not (again, with that one single exception of rogues that don't want to invest in feats).

[djreynolds]

I'm not sure, but it seems in IRL to wield 2 weapons would be tough to match that guy with one blade, or sword and board.

I see TWF as an improvised style, like I'm escaping from the dungeon and there are two daggers.

Perhaps its not meant to be optimal, but its not terrible

At our table we use two-weapon rend, if you hit with both weapons you can rend at the cost of your reaction for double proficiency damage

And even this has its negatives, as you have no reaction, no defensive duelist, no AoO, no shield spell

It was mainly introduced for our fighters with 3 attacks, its not bad and it works

[MeeposFire]

I'm not sure, but it seems in IRL to wield 2 weapons would be tough to match that guy with one blade, or sword and board.

I see TWF as an improvised style, like I'm escaping from the dungeon and there are two daggers.

Perhaps its not meant to be optimal, but its not terrible

At our table we use two-weapon rend, if you hit with both weapons you can rend at the cost of your reaction for double proficiency damage

And even this has its negatives, as you have no reaction, no defensive duelist, no AoO, no shield spell

It was mainly introduced for our fighters with 3 attacks, its not bad and it works

Not my cup of tea. That just takes my least favorite part of TWF and making it worse. I can live with less damage but do not saddle me with a messed action economy. That just removes too many fun things and prevent it from working with other features some of which should work with TWF. NOw defensive duelist is a no go as is uncanny dodge and that cost is merely an attempt to make the style try to get up to the damage values of the other styles? This is the same as the major issue with the style. If you make something that requires additional action economy it cannot just be equal to the other styles that do not require that action economy it actually needs to be better since you are asking for an additional cost over the other styles.

Personally I do not think that TWF needs to be better than the other styles so I just give it the same action economy essentially as all other styles and go from there.

[djreynolds]

Not my cup of tea. That just takes my least favorite part of TWF and making it worse. I can live with less damage but do not saddle me with a messed action economy. That just removes too many fun things and prevent it from working with other features some of which should work with TWF. NOw defensive duelist is a no go as is uncanny dodge and that cost is merely an attempt to make the style try to get up to the damage values of the other styles? This is the same as the major issue with the style. If you make something that requires additional action economy it cannot just be equal to the other styles that do not require that action economy it actually needs to be better since you are asking for an additional cost over the other styles.

Personally I do not think that TWF needs to be better than the other styles so I just give it the same action economy essentially as all other styles and go from there.

We tried it without a cost, only the two hits and players complained.

It gave players a choice to perhaps go for the kill at the expense of uncanny dodge or defensive duelist

I wonder what the designers say when asked this question of whether or not they like TWF or its just the way it is.

[Petrocorus]

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

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

Dual Wielder is not horrible, ......
That said, I think one little thing that really takes viability away from TWF is that the fighting style is only available to Fighters and Rangers. TWF thrives when..... without any effort.

I concur with this. For emphasis and summation, my problem with TWF is that, contrary to other styles FS and feats that give bonuses and options, the TWF FS and the feat only alleviates the inherent penalties of the styles. Penalties that should not exist in the first place.

I mean, the limitations on weapon size, drawing and damage may be realistic, but given the realism of the rule set as a whole and notably of other weapon feats, they are more out of place and messing up than anything.

The FS is are actually required to make it work properly, the other FS give actual bonuses. The feat's only real benefit is the bonus to AC, its other features are just to alleviates limitations. OTOH, the other feats give an extra-attack or a potential one (which is supposed to be the schtick of TWF) with lower cost and other real benefits. And the need for the FS make it even more sub-par for the Barbarian and the Paladin, who should be able to use it, and that bugs me.

As many, on both side of the argument, have pointed out, the Class that get the most out of TWF is the Rogue, a class which don't have the FS and is not really designed to use TWF. This only shows that it was badly designed.

And that's even before factoring the action economy issue.

[Dudu]

Plenty of people dislike the thematics, at least in the context of it being an effective battlefield style.

Adressing not exactly you, but whoever don't like TWF for it not being "an effective battlefield style", I'd like to add that this would not justify the fact that the game does give the option to dual wield, and yet that option sucks.

Now, on dual wielding itself:

I believe it's expensive and yet it does worse than other options. The two-hander is doing more damage, possibly way more, the sword-and-board is being a much more competent tanker. The polearm fighter is being a beast. And let's not even talk about archery.

Their core mechanics already work, the FS enhance them and the feats open up the potential greatly. Meanwhile, it seems DW FS is merely fixing the style and the feat doesn't bring anything that a mere stat bump would. So the Two Hander and the Archers are hitting nukes, the Polearm guy is hitting even more often than the dual wielder and the Sword and Board is doing his job tanking for the party while doing a respectable ammount of damage nonetheless.

And like it was said in this thread before, if magic items are part of the campaign, this will be twice more costly for the dual wielder than the rest. The Two Handed can use his +2 Great Maul for every attack, but the dual wielder would need +2 weapons for both hands.

I hope they adress this issue in a PHB2, because it does exist. It's an option clearly inferior to the others. And some people do like fancying thenselves as dual wielders.

[Citan]

if you're using two weapons (one in each hand) and not fighting with them, that isn't two-weapon fighting being good.

I've talking of javelins, you keep back talking about daggers.
Also you try to undermine my arguments by mixing all together when I evidently made several distinct hypothesis catering to different situations.
Plz first actually read what I say, then we can continue discussing.
Meanwhile I won't add anymore. ;)

[Sigreid]

I'm not sure, but it seems in IRL to wield 2 weapons would be tough to match that guy with one blade, or sword and board.

I see TWF as an improvised style, like I'm escaping from the dungeon and there are two daggers.

Perhaps its not meant to be optimal, but its not terrible

At our table we use two-weapon rend, if you hit with both weapons you can rend at the cost of your reaction for double proficiency damage

And even this has its negatives, as you have no reaction, no defensive duelist, no AoO, no shield spell

It was mainly introduced for our fighters with 3 attacks, its not bad and it works

When I did the SCA thing there was a man I knew who fought 2 maces. He was a blacksmith by trade and he won a lot of fights drummer style. He kept at you fast and hard and you basically just had no opportunity to counter attack while he beat you down like he was beating on a drum. He was pretty effective. He did have absolutely no defense other than unrelenting attack though.

[Nightcanon]

Not a 5e player, so can't comment on the mechanical aspects that others have gone into in detail.
Couple of questions though: is going for a (Str-based) TWF style really a Roleplaying decision, rather than a thematic one? Clearly it is sub-optimal, so it isn't really a minmax/'Rollplaying' issue, but unless the character has some reason for fighting with a weapon in both hands, isn't it about what you the player think is a cool character concept (which is totally fine, btw)? How a character fights can show his personality- reckless, cautious, cunning, and so on- but I'm not sure what TWF rather that S&B or 2HF says about him.
Secondly, 6 pages and no mention of That Drow Ranger? Is TWF no longer associated with renegade CG Drow in 5e?

[EvilAnagram]

Secondly, 6 pages and no mention of That Drow Ranger? Is TWF no longer associated with renegade CG Drow in 5e?

I just don't think anybody cares about Drizzt. The books aren't particularly good, so they've exhausted their staying power, and there have been two editions since the last time he was relevant. Even when they included him in a cross-media story arc, everyone pretty much ignored his role.

[Easy_Lee]

I just don't think anybody cares about Drizzt. The books aren't particularly good, so they've exhausted their staying power, and there have been two editions since the last time he was relevant. Even when they included him in a cross-media story arc, everyone pretty much ignored his role.

The Drizzt books aren't for everyone, but they're remarkably consistent. Salvatore's writing style and Drizzt's traits change very gradually. It's hard to find a series like that.

But like I said, it's not for everyone. If you like one Drizzt book, you'll like them all. Otherwise, you won't.

But Drizzt wouldn't be particularly good at combat in 5e. He wouldn't be terrible, just not good. One could probably build him as a TWF / Archery Champion Fighter with Defensive Duelist, Dual Wielder, and resilient Wisdom saving throws. He'd have slightly above average defenses and below average damage, with no special tricks and no area where he excelled. His only saving grace would be the panther.

And that's the point of this thread. TWF excels in no particular area, and falls behind in damage. It's disappointing.

[djreynolds]

When I did the SCA thing there was a man I knew who fought 2 maces. He was a blacksmith by trade and he won a lot of fights drummer style. He kept at you fast and hard and you basically just had no opportunity to counter attack while he beat you down like he was beating on a drum. He was pretty effective. He did have absolutely no defense other than unrelenting attack though.

It has to be tough. I guess TWF is like boxing or any martial art... you have a favored "hand"

For instance say a boxer has a right handed cross/hook and left jab, or southpaw... right jab and left hook. Sure the may switch it up, but there are combo they train for. Left jab, right cross, maybe a left hook or upper cut, maybe a big right hook... whatever

I think you are correct, either they are coming at you with a particular combination of strikes or they are coming at your drummer style.

I can't remember that far back but didn't TWF have a dex and int pre-req in earlier additions

I could see a homebrew where so much intelligence/wisdom gave a two-weapon combatant an extra bonus action or reaction. Drizzt was smart

[imanidiot]

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.

Mechanically my team is going to get more out of a shove prone from Shield Master than the piddly damage from an off hand attack.

[Rogerdodger557]

Not a 5e player, so can't comment on the mechanical aspects that others have gone into in detail.
Couple of questions though: is going for a (Str-based) TWF style really a Roleplaying decision, rather than a thematic one? Clearly it is sub-optimal, so it isn't really a minmax/'Rollplaying' issue, but unless the character has some reason for fighting with a weapon in both hands, isn't it about what you the player think is a cool character concept (which is totally fine, btw)? How a character fights can show his personality- reckless, cautious, cunning, and so on- but I'm not sure what TWF rather that S&B or 2HF says about him.
Secondly, 6 pages and no mention of That Drow Ranger? Is TWF no longer associated with renegade CG Drow in 5e?

In 5e as part of character creation, you have to pick a background. This will give you some starting equipment, bonus proficiencies, and a non-combat related feature that usually helps with roleplaying. There are tables that you can roll traits on, or just pick(personality traits, ideals, bonds, and flaws) I had picked the Outlander background, and the personality trait that I picked was that my character was raised by wolves. Because of this, his fighting style is to attack with everything he has. That's the character's motivation for it anyways. Tabletopping, it was because I thought is was a cool character concept that would be fun to play.

[GlenSmash!]

, 6 pages and no mention of That Drow Ranger? Is TWF no longer associated with renegade CG Drow in 5e?

It's more like the renegade CG Drow is no longer associated with D&D in 5e. At least not significantly so.

[Tanarii]

It's more like the renegade CG Drow is no longer associated with D&D in 5e. At least not significantly so.

Of course it isn't. That's why the Drow aren't in the PHB. Nope. I'd be shocked, absolutely shocked to hear support for such a thing was included in 5e.

[GlenSmash!]

gandalf looks ridiculous and awkward when he actually tries to use both weapons. which is pretty bad,

The Gandalf of the books was wise enough to only use his staff as an spellcasting focus. His movie counterpart not so much.

[Boci]

Of course it isn't. That's why the Drow aren't in the PHB. Nope. I'd be shocked, absolutely shocked to hear support for such a thing was included in 5e.

To be fair, drow being a playable race might not have much to do with Drizz't. They are a cool race, and one of the more interesting cultures the game has spawned. In 3.5, Drow effectively got their own book, which no other race can claim (unless you count the Fiendish Codexs, but that seems to be cheating, comparing the whole demon race to one subset of the elven race).

[Cybren]

Drow in the PHB is 110% because of Drizzt, because Drow popularity as a PC race is 150% because of Drezztzlztettz

[Boci]

Drow in the PHB is 110% because of Drizzt, because Drow popularity as a PC race is 150% because of Drezztzlztettz

That seems highly unlikely. As I said, there was a whole book on drow culture, and I don't think it mentioned Drizz't once.

[Cybren]

That seems highly unlikely. As I said, there was a whole book on drow culture, and I don't think it mentioned Drizz't once.

The character predates 3.5 by over a decade. Why do you think that book exists in the first place?