Why all the hate on dual wielding?

[Tanarii]

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

I certainly assume that the first is the case. That said, they were an already popular race, as seen by the inclusion of Drow in the original UA. it's just an assumption on my part that Drizzt popularity is the reason, not general popularity. (And of course, at this point the two may be hard to seperate.) Without Mearls or JC confirmation, it'll remain speculation.

[Boci]

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

Because people were interested in drow culture? If the book existed because of Driz't, you'd expect a bit more Driz't in it, other than 100 pages + of drow culture, that isn't terrible relevant to a Driz't fan, since, its really just a foot note in his backstory.

[Cybren]

Because people were interested in drow culture? If the book existed because of Driz't, you'd expect a bit more Driz't in it, other than 100 pages + of drow culture, that isn't terrible relevant to a Driz't fan, since, its really just a foot note in his backstory.

you seem to be missing my point. People are interested in drow culture because of him. people want to play drow because of him. He is the reason there is any interest in drow as a PC race. That book would not have saw print if Drazlt wasn't already a popular character, regardless of his lack of prominance in the book itself (after all, it's a book about drow culture, not a book about Druzzle)

[Boci]

you seem to be missing my point. People are interested in drow culture because of him. people want to play drow because of him. He is the reason there is any interest in drow as a PC race. That book would not have saw print if Drazlt wasn't already a popular character, regardless of his lack of prominance in the book itself (after all, it's a book about drow culture, not a book about Druzzle)

Why would people be interested in drow culture because of Drizz't? He has barely anything to do with it, that's the whole point of his character.

People like drow culture because an underground, back stabbing, matriachal race that worships an insane spider demon goddess and keeps spiders as pets ism kinda cool. Plus they're an evil race, and they always have a following. I'm sure Drizz't helped gain the drow fans, but the idea that he is the only reason they're popular is ludicrous.

[Cybren]

Why would people be interested in drow culture because of Drizz't? He has barely anything to do with it, that's the whole point of his character.

Violently rejecting something still means you have everything to do with it. Defining yourself in relation against something still requires you to understand the something.

People like drow culture because an underground, back stabbing, matriachal race that worships an insane spider demon goddess and keeps spiders as pets ism kinda cool. Plus they're an evil race, and they always have a following. I'm sure Drizz't helped gain the drow fans, but the idea that he is the only reason they're popular is ludicrous.

It's not ludicrous, it's reality. People like Drow, as a PC race, because of Drizztiitzt, which is literally the thing I've been saying this whole time

[Boci]

It's not ludicrous, it's reality. People like Drow, as a PC race, because of Drizztiitzt, which is literally the thing I've been saying this whole time

That's simply not true. I loved the drow before I ever heard of Driz't. My friend adores them, as an NPC and PC race, and he's never heard of Driz't.

Maybe we are unique, and every one else is only interested because of Driz't. But I doubt it.

[MadBear]

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

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

I'm sorry, but it's hard to take you seriously Citan, when you make a statement like this. Just to try and show why that statement is ridiculous let me give an example. In Legend of the 5 Rings, your dice explode (you get to roll them again when you roll a 10 on a d10, and this can happen multiple times). The probability that I throw a punch that does 100 damage is extraordinarily low (.000000001%). It'd be asinine to say "that's just true in Theory. Always in theory. Fighting with your hands gives you CHOICE".

First off, using statistics is the only sure way we can reliably come to understandings of what works and doesn't work in a game. TWF gives players choice at a much costlier reduction in ability then other styles. It'd be unacceptable balancing for instance if the GWF ability stated: You get to reroll 1's and 2's for heavy weapons, but you suffer a --8 to your AC when using a heavy weapon. Similarly, having a DPS style do less damage then a S&B fighter is dumb, and it shouldn't have made it into the players handbook in its current form.

[Knaight]

I'm sorry, but it's hard to take you seriously Citan, when you make a statement like this. Just to try and show why that statement is ridiculous let me give an example. In Legend of the 5 Rings, your dice explode (you get to roll them again when you roll a 10 on a d10, and this can happen multiple times). The probability that I throw a punch that does 100 damage is extraordinarily low (.000000001%). It'd be asinine to say "that's just true in Theory. Always in theory. Fighting with your hands gives you CHOICE".

That's not comparable. The TWF case is pointing out that some of the simplifications made when calculating DPR for comparison purposes don't necessarily hold well for an actual game, with damage overflow being particularly relevant - and that the new options provided by TWF can be stronger when considering cases not well covered by the model. Looking at damage overflow again, consider a simple case where one character gets one 20 damage attack, and another character gets two 8 damage attacks. DPR is clearly higher for the first character, but the second character has significantly better odds of dropping anyone with 0-8 HP, and low but not nonexistent odds of dropping two targets with 0-8 HP in one round.

The L5R comparison is more like one character getting one 20 damage attack, and one character getting one 16 damage attack. There's no additional options there, just a worse version of the same option.

[Kryx]

damage overflow

If damage overflow was a consideration we would see a difference in damage in other fighting styles or classes. Compare TWF to PAM to see that they both have the same amount of attacks (meaning same chance of damage overflow) and yet PAM does significantly more damage. Fighter does many attacks while a Barbarian does a few big ones and yet their damage values are quite comparable.

People can try to justify the reason however they please, but not a single justification presented is based on math. This justification (damage overflow) is no different in that no other fighting style or class provides a variation in expected damage based on damage overflow.

[Tanarii]

That's not comparable. The TWF case is pointing out that some of the simplifications made when calculating DPR for comparison purposes don't necessarily hold well for an actual game, with damage overflow being particularly relevant - and that the new options provided by TWF can be stronger when considering cases not well covered by the model. Looking at damage overflow again, consider a simple case where one character gets one 20 damage attack, and another character gets two 8 damage attacks. DPR is clearly higher for the first character, but the second character has significantly better odds of dropping anyone with 0-8 HP, and low but not nonexistent odds of dropping two targets with 0-8 HP in one round.

Another case where DPR doesn't show everything going on, and closely related to your damage overflow scenario, is the change in the 'bell curve' of damage.

If you compare 4d6+6 Greatsword (2 attacks) to 3d6+9 dual-shortswords (3 attacks), with a 60% chance to hit, they have distinctly different distribution of damage. For example & for starters, the chance that the greatsword will do 0 damage is 16%. The chance that the dual-shortswords will do 0 damage is 6.4%.

[EvilAnagram]

It's not ludicrous, it's reality. People like Drow, as a PC race, because of Drizztiitzt, which is literally the thing I've been saying this whole time

I get that 2e grognards still think that Drizzle is a huge part of D&D culture, but I honestly don't know anyone who started playing post-3.0 who likes the character or has read the books. Every single time WotC works him into a story I cringe because he's just not relevant to anything other than discussions of why he isn't relevant to D&D culture anymore. He's Flash Gordon. Commando Cody. Eragon. He's a character who had a moment of relevance, but lacked staying power. People who want to play a Drow now don't think about him because no one likes or cares about him.

Sure, Drow became popular because of his books, but now he is the least remembered part of those books, while there are plenty of people interested in Drow society.

[Kryx]

If you compare 4d6+6 Greatsword (2 attacks) to 3d6+9 dual-shortswords (3 attacks)

Now do that with a polearm using PAM.

[Sigreid]

you seem to be missing my point. People are interested in drow culture because of him. people want to play drow because of him. He is the reason there is any interest in drow as a PC race. That book would not have saw print if Drazlt wasn't already a popular character, regardless of his lack of prominance in the book itself (after all, it's a book about drow culture, not a book about Druzzle)

I can personally certify that lots of us thought drow were cool before there was a drizzt and we never got in to that dark elf.

[Cybren]

I get that 2e grognards still think that Drizzle is a huge part of D&D culture, but I honestly don't know anyone who started playing post-3.0 who likes the character or has read the books. Every single time WotC works him into a story I cringe because he's just not relevant to anything other than discussions of why he isn't relevant to D&D culture anymore. He's Flash Gordon. Commando Cody. Eragon. He's a character who had a moment of relevance, but lacked staying power. People who want to play a Drow now don't think about him because no one likes or cares about him.

Sure, Drow became popular because of his books, but now he is the least remembered part of those books, while there are plenty of people interested in Drow society.

The last sentence of this post is the only thing I've been arguing.

[Boci]

The last sentence of this post is the only thing I've been arguing.

But you said "Drow in the PHB is 110% because of Drizzt" which is talking about 5th ed.

Which is a weird claim to make, because Driz't wasn't enough to get drow into the 3.5 or 4thed players handbook. Why is he only enough now, when his popularity has largely faded?

As I said, the popularity of drow culture seems far more likely at this stage.

[Knaight]

I get that 2e grognards still think that Drizzle is a huge part of D&D culture, but I honestly don't know anyone who started playing post-3.0 who likes the character or has read the books.

I doubt this - more accurately, I doubt whether you actually know whether people who started post 3.0 have read the books. It's not like people bring up every forgettable fantasy novel they've read to everybody they meet after all, and these were distinctly mediocre drivel. Heck, I started with 3.0/3.5*, I read some Drizzt novels not knowing they were particularly D&D related entirely on the basis of my junior high library having a fantasy section that was literally one small shelf that they were on, and even at the time I knew I was reading trashy literature. It was enjoyable trashy literature at the time (my standards at 13 weren't that high), but it never led me to play or even consider playing a drow character.

*3.0 PHB, 3.5 MM and DMG.

If damage overflow was a consideration we would see a difference in damage in other fighting styles or classes. Compare TWF to PAM to see that they both have the same amount of attacks (meaning same chance of damage overflow) and yet PAM does significantly more damage. Fighter does many attacks while a Barbarian does a few big ones and yet their damage values are quite comparable.

This doesn't indicate that damage overflow isn't a consideration that should be taken into account for balance purposes, or that damage overflow isn't a case worth remembering in terms of imperfections in the DPR model. It's an indication that the designers either didn't successfully balance around it - whether because they didn't consider it, or they tried and failed, or they decided not to.

[Tanarii]

Why is he only enough now, when his popularity has largely faded?

Not sure what makes you think Drizz't popularity has faded. I saw Drizz't clones regularly throughout the lifetime of 3e, 4e, and so far 5e. Only Logolas / Gimli clones are more persistently embedded IMO.

[Boci]

Not sure what makes you think Drizz't popularity has faded. I saw Drizz't clones regularly throughout the lifetime of 3e, 4e, and so far 5e. Only Logolas / Gimli clones are more persistently embedded IMO.

Because quite a few players being new have no idea who he is, which didn't use to be true?

[GlenSmash!]

Because quite a few players being new have no idea who he is, which didn't use to be true?

Indeed. We have a generation now that never heard of Drizzle but grew up watching LotR movies.

[Tanarii]

Because quite a few players being new have no idea who he is, which didn't use to be true?

Being popular didn't ever mean everyone knew who he was. And that's a ridiculously hard thing to measure anyway. Regardless of if who doesn't know about him has increased, how often he's cloned has not, in my experienced, decreased to any significant degree. OTOH I don't usually play with teens. So I may be seeing the effects of a slightly more mature crowd (25+) and something has changed in the last 5-10 years.

[Kryx]

It's an indication that the designers either didn't successfully balance around it - whether because they didn't consider it, or they tried and failed, or they decided not to.

Sure, if you want to balance around it then that's your choice. This discussion is about RAW rules and how the methods of fighting stack up and in RAW rules "damage overflow" isn't accounted for in damage output as can be seen by PAM and other factors.

[Matrix_Walker]

I have heard reference of the name dritzz but never read any of the books he's featured in.

People have always wanted to play drow for their many cool racial spells resistances and uniqueness, some obscure character has nothing to do with it.

[Boci]

Being popular didn't ever mean everyone knew who he was. And that's a ridiculously hard thing to measure anyway. Regardless of if who doesn't know about him has increased, how often he's cloned has not, in my experienced, decreased to any significant degree. OTOH I don't usually play with teens. So I may be seeing the effects of a slightly more mature crowd (25+) and something has changed in the last 5-10 years.

People coming into the game now aren't necessarily going to know about Driz't. How would they? The rule books seem almost embarrassed to name him. D&D has grown. Sure you could say the same number of people know about him now as they use to, that he's still cloned an equal amount, but I would argue that is the same as his popularity is fading when the game has expanded to 10 million players globally.

[FreddyNoNose]

I certainly assume that the first is the case. That said, they were an already popular race, as seen by the inclusion of Drow in the original UA. it's just an assumption on my part that Drizzt popularity is the reason, not general popularity. (And of course, at this point the two may be hard to seperate.) Without Mearls or JC confirmation, it'll remain speculation.

I would like to add that at the end of the module G3 Hall of the Fire Giant King in 1978 there is a section on Drow. From that, players were talking DMs into playing Drow back in 1978. This is my experience and many DMs I knew wouldn't allow it but some did. It spread from there to other published material.

So some say Drizzt caused the popularity. Perhaps that is true for their experience but it certainly isn't the origins of Drow PCs. It kind of reveals when people came into the hobby to me.

[Naanomi]

I've played a long time and I only knew Drizzt from his Baldur's Gate cameos...

[Cybren]

I would like to add that at the end of the module G3 Hall of the Fire Giant King in 1978 there is a section on Drow. From that, players were talking DMs into playing Drow back in 1978. This is my experience and many DMs I knew wouldn't allow it but some did. It spread from there to other published material.

So some say Drizzt caused the popularity. Perhaps that is true for their experience but it certainly isn't the origins of Drow PCs. It kind of reveals when people came into the hobby to me.

i'm not arguing people didn't want to play drow before draziprhas, i'm just saying that the mass popularity of drow as a common PC race is owed to him. Which it is.

[Knaight]

Sure, if you want to balance around it then that's your choice. This discussion is about RAW rules and how the methods of fighting stack up and in RAW rules "damage overflow" isn't accounted for in damage output as can be seen by PAM and other factors.

Bolding mine.

This discussion is about how the methods of fighting stack up, yes. The extent to which damage is wasted in the context of strong single attacks instead of multiple weaker attacks is part of that balance. It's not something the designers have to specifically put there, it emerges intrinsically the instant there's a HP and damage system and characters with multiple attacks show up.

[Boci]

i'm not arguing people didn't want to play drow before draziprhas, i'm just saying that the mass popularity of drow as a common PC race is owed to him. Which it is.

Actually you were also saying drow are a PHB race in 5th ed because of him (but he didn't get them in there in previous editions for some reason) and that people got interested in drow culture because of him, yet they seemed interested in drow culture before he existed.

[Kryx]

This discussion is about how the methods of fighting stack up, yes. The extent to which damage is wasted in the context of strong single attacks instead of multiple weaker attacks is part of that balance.

Please provide the math comparing TWF vs PAM showing that the loss of damage for TWF is due to "damage overflow". Math has been provided many times showing that TWF does not do sufficient damage. If you're going to make claims you're going to need to provide math to back up those claims or those claims have no merit.

Here, I'll make it simple. At level 5:
TWF barbarian just using reckless attack does 7.1 damage per attack for his first attack and extra attack. He does 2.5 damage for his bonus attack.
PAM barbarian just using reckless attack does 8.0 damage per attack for his first attack and extra attack. He does 4.8 damage for his bonus attack and 6.0 damage if an enemy provokes an attack.
Both characters have 3 attacks, all 3 of which the PAM build is doing more damage with.

TWF fighter using no extra abilities but attacking does 5.4 damage per attack for his first attack and extra attack. He does 5.4 damage for his bonus attack.
PAM fighter using no extra abilities but attacking does 6.3 damage per attack for his first attack and extra attack. He does 4.0 damage for his bonus attack and 6.3 damage if an enemy provokes an attack.
Both characters have 3 attacks, the PAM build ahead by about 1 on the normal attacks and behind by about 1.5 on the bonus attack with the option of the provoke brining things quite out of line.

The same idea rings true when taking class features and the adventuring day into account. In those metrics TWF does about 70% of GWM. Full Math

"Damage overflow" is just as invalid as the other excuses in this thread that have been claimed without any math provided. "Damage overflow" has no impact what so ever on the power level of TWF. TWF is not up to par with the other martial options.

[Tanarii]

(but he didn't get them in there in previous editions for some reason)

Not sure why you think Drow weren't in previous editions ...

Anyway, I think the main problem here is we're all just seeing each others claims as untenable and unlikely, and our own as reasonable. Nothing new there. ;)