New OOTS products from CafePress
New OOTS t-shirts, ornaments, mugs, bags, and more
Page 8 of 10 FirstFirst 12345678910 LastLast
Results 211 to 240 of 286
  1. - Top - End - #211
    Titan in the Playground
     
    DrowGuy

    Join Date
    Jul 2008

    Default Re: Why all the hate on dual wielding?

    Quote Originally Posted by Tanarii View Post
    Not sure why you think Drow weren't in previous editions ...
    If you read the part of my sentance that comes before:

    "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)"

    They were in the edition yes, but not in the PHB. It just seems wierd to me to credit Driz't for that in 5th ed, when he was around for 3rd and 4th, yet was unable to achieve that.
    "It doesn't matter how much you struggle or strive,
    You'll never get out of life alive,
    So please kill yourself and save this land,
    And your last mission is to spread my command,"

    Slightly adapted quote from X-Fusion, Please Kill Yourself

  2. - Top - End - #212
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Tanarii's Avatar

    Join Date
    Sep 2015

    Default Re: Why all the hate on dual wielding?

    Quote Originally Posted by Boci View Post
    If you read the part of my sentance that comes before:

    "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)"

    They were in the edition yes, but not in the PHB. It just seems wierd to me to credit Driz't for that in 5th ed, when he was around for 3rd and 4th, yet was unable to achieve that.
    And it seems weird to me to credit Drow being in 5e to anything else at all. My experience is the VAST majority of drow fans that are my age or younger are that way because of Drizzt. Whereas only very aging grognards, older than me are that way because of anything other than Drizzt. And I'm middle aged and started on BECMI/AD&D 1e at 10 years old.

  3. - Top - End - #213
    Titan in the Playground
     
    DrowGuy

    Join Date
    Jul 2008

    Default Re: Why all the hate on dual wielding?

    Quote Originally Posted by Tanarii View Post
    And it seems weird to me to credit Drow being in 5e to anything else at all. My experience is the VAST majority of drow fans that are my age or younger are that way because of Drizzt. Whereas only very aging grognards, older than me are that way because of anything other than Drizzt. And I'm middle aged and started on BECMI/AD&D 1e at 10 years old.
    But that contradicts what we see from WotC.

    If Driz't got drow into the players handbook in 5th ed, why weren't they in the player's hand book in 3rd and 4th edition?

    If Driz't is the reason people like drow, why was there a 150 page splat book about drow that didn't mention Driz't? Why are there so many discussions on the forum that mention drow but not Driz't?

    This isn't two different opinions neither one better than the other, the popularity you imagine Driz't having doesn't hold up to how he's been used in D&D. You even admitted the same number of people clone him, but the game has grown, implying a decrease in his relevance to the game.
    Last edited by Boci; 2017-07-24 at 07:01 PM.
    "It doesn't matter how much you struggle or strive,
    You'll never get out of life alive,
    So please kill yourself and save this land,
    And your last mission is to spread my command,"

    Slightly adapted quote from X-Fusion, Please Kill Yourself

  4. - Top - End - #214
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    MadBear's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Seattle
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Why all the hate on dual wielding?

    Quote Originally Posted by Knaight View Post
    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.
    And I'm pointing out that just saying "It's theory" is an absolutely abysmal way to make any kind of compelling point. The L5R comparison was simply to point out that you can make any absurd case if you say another position is "just theory".

    As others have already pointed out, if you are Citan want to provide any evidence that damage overflow is a common enough that you need to significantly lessen the DPR of TWF to make up for it be my guest. It's also a completely ad hoc excuse for poor design, and it clashes with other obvious examples of fighting styles. A pole arm fighter will do less damage then a GWM because they get to: Make more reliable reaction attacks, and get bonus action attacks. But the drop in DPR between them and GWM is smaller then the gap between TWF's and GWM's. In other words, there's no good reason for TWF to be as bad as it is.

    That isn't to say you can't have fun using it. you can. That isn't to say you'll die horribly if you use it. you won't..... well DM dependent I guess. But for such an iconic view of a class, it should be much better then it currently is.

  5. - Top - End - #215
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Tanarii's Avatar

    Join Date
    Sep 2015

    Default Re: Why all the hate on dual wielding?

    Quote Originally Posted by Boci View Post
    This isn't two different opinions neither one better than the other
    I agree. Clearly mine is always better.

    Seriously though, I can't believe you're actually trying to claim your opinion on the matter has some kind of factual justification to back it up. /smh

  6. - Top - End - #216
    Ogre in the Playground
    Join Date
    Mar 2006

    Default Re: Why all the hate on dual wielding?

    Quote Originally Posted by Boci View Post
    If you read the part of my sentance that comes before:

    "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)"

    They were in the edition yes, but not in the PHB. It just seems wierd to me to credit Driz't for that in 5th ed, when he was around for 3rd and 4th, yet was unable to achieve that.
    3.5 didn't need them in the PHB, because it had a comprehensive way of building Monsters-As-PCs. The rules for playing Drow is in the SRD. 4E had stats for Drow-As-PCs in three different books

  7. - Top - End - #217
    Titan in the Playground
     
    DrowGuy

    Join Date
    Jul 2008

    Default Re: Why all the hate on dual wielding?

    Quote Originally Posted by Tanarii View Post
    I agree. Clearly mine is always better.

    Seriously though, I can't believe you're actually trying to claim your opinion on the matter has some kind of factual justification to back it up. /smh
    Well, I did reference marketing trends and raised actual questions to demonstrate why I felt crediting Driz't was flawed, which tend to be considered more factual than "in my experience", which is all you offered, but hey, at the end of the day, it doesn't really matter either way.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cybren View Post
    3.5 didn't need them in the PHB, because it had a comprehensive way of building Monsters-As-PCs.
    So it didn't need to list high-elves or halfling in the PHB, but it did.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cybren View Post
    The rules for playing Drow is in the SRD. 4E had stats for Drow-As-PCs in three different books
    And you're implying that somehow makes up for them not being in the players handbook?
    Last edited by Boci; 2017-07-24 at 07:11 PM.
    "It doesn't matter how much you struggle or strive,
    You'll never get out of life alive,
    So please kill yourself and save this land,
    And your last mission is to spread my command,"

    Slightly adapted quote from X-Fusion, Please Kill Yourself

  8. - Top - End - #218
    Ogre in the Playground
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Location
    United States
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Why all the hate on dual wielding?

    Quote Originally Posted by Knaight View Post
    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.
    Actually, there's a guy at my FLGS who constantly brings up Drizzt, to the confusion of most. At one point, he referenced Drizzt and when he got no response he asked if anyone had read the books. He got twelve blank stares.

    Certainly, there are post-3.0 players who've read the books, but their popularity plummeted around that time, and it has little effect on the current player base.

  9. - Top - End - #219
    Ogre in the Playground
    Join Date
    Mar 2006

    Default Re: Why all the hate on dual wielding?

    Quote Originally Posted by Boci View Post
    And you're implying that somehow makes up for them not being in the players handbook?
    ...yes? that's implied in the sense that that's what I said

  10. - Top - End - #220
    Titan in the Playground
     
    DrowGuy

    Join Date
    Jul 2008

    Default Re: Why all the hate on dual wielding?

    Quote Originally Posted by Cybren View Post
    ...yes? that's implied in the sense that that's what I said
    But, it doesn't. It means drow are a significant race within D&D yes, but then Drows of the Underdark proved that half an edition ago (again, having proved it previous in an even further back edition). We already knew that.

    That doesn't change the fact that they weren't in the players handbook. They could have been, effectively high elves and wood elves both were (as eldarin and elves respectively), but drow weren't. Upon release, they were in the monster manual with the other monsters.

    Now in 5th edition they are in the player's handbook, and traditionally playable monsters like goblins and goliath got left out of core.

    So something changed between 4th ed and 5th ed, and I'm pretty sure it wasn't Driz't, since as you said, he had already been around for a long time.
    Last edited by Boci; 2017-07-24 at 07:48 PM.
    "It doesn't matter how much you struggle or strive,
    You'll never get out of life alive,
    So please kill yourself and save this land,
    And your last mission is to spread my command,"

    Slightly adapted quote from X-Fusion, Please Kill Yourself

  11. - Top - End - #221
    Pixie in the Playground
     
    ClericGuy

    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Maryland, USA

    Default Re: Why all the hate on dual wielding?

    Quote Originally Posted by Rogerdodger557 View Post
    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.
    Generally, TWF is fine, in the way that even 'deprecated' options in 5E are actually still quite competitive. 5E balance is sufficiently tight that, yes, some options are better than others, but the span between them isn't particularly vast.

    That said, I think the problem with two-weapon fighting is the design space it's been assigned. For some reason, people (including the designers) seem to think that wielding two weapons is an offensive stratagem. And therefore, TWF is compared against great weapons, etc., and looks sad and lame.

    But wielding two weapons should really be about flexibility. And the design of both the fighting style and the feat should mirror that. Benefits should revolve around not offering enemies advantage, flexibility in choosing a bit of extra defense or a bit of extra offense each round, things like that.

    Then, like S&B, there would be an interesting and dramatic set of use-cases for dual-wielding beyond just 'more opportunities to stab'.
    He was born with a gift of laughter and the sense that the world was mad --Rafael Sabatini

  12. - Top - End - #222
    Ogre in the Playground
    Join Date
    Mar 2006

    Default Re: Why all the hate on dual wielding?

    Quote Originally Posted by Boci View Post
    But, it doesn't. It means drow are a significant race within D&D yes, but then Drows of the Underdark proved that half an edition ago (again, having proved it previous in an even further back edition). We already knew that.

    That doesn't change the fact that they weren't in the players handbook. They could have been, effectively high elves and wood elves both were (as eldarin and elves respectively), but drow weren't. Upon release, they were in the monster manual with the other monsters.

    Now in 5th edition they are in the player's handbook, and traditionally playable monsters like goblins and goliath got left out of core.

    So something changed between 4th ed and 5th ed, and I'm pretty sure it wasn't Driz't, since as you said, he had already been around for a long time.
    it's Driztltzt. Notice the difference in release schedule between 3.X/4E and 5E. 5E wanted to be as comprehensive as possible outside the gate. They knew people liked playing Drow (and a lot of people liked playing drow because of a certain book series from the early 90s).

  13. - Top - End - #223
    Titan in the Playground
     
    DrowGuy

    Join Date
    Jul 2008

    Default Re: Why all the hate on dual wielding?

    Quote Originally Posted by Cybren View Post
    it's Driztltzt. Notice the difference in release schedule between 3.X/4E and 5E. 5E wanted to be as comprehensive as possible outside the gate. They knew people liked playing Drow (and a lot of people liked playing drow because of a certain book series from the early 90s).
    It's (probably) not Drizt. They added tieflings to the player's handbook for 4th ed, and drow were in the monster manual. Those two races could just as easily have been reversed. Did they forget Driz't existed for 4th ed?

    Furthermore, okay, let's say Driz't is ultimately responsible for making drow popular, that may very well be possible. But 3.5's drow of the underdark proved that they were marketable of a race without him, even if he was responsible for that popularity initially, it was now self sustaining.

    Crediting Drizt for drow in 5th ed is crediting Gygax for 5th ed. We wouldn't have it without him, but it sounds a bit weird now.
    Last edited by Boci; 2017-07-24 at 08:11 PM.
    "It doesn't matter how much you struggle or strive,
    You'll never get out of life alive,
    So please kill yourself and save this land,
    And your last mission is to spread my command,"

    Slightly adapted quote from X-Fusion, Please Kill Yourself

  14. - Top - End - #224
    Orc in the Playground
     
    PaladinGuy

    Join Date
    Feb 2017

    Default Re: Why all the hate on dual wielding?

    Sounds like someone should start a new thread... talk about some obscure character has nothing to do with the topic at hand.

  15. - Top - End - #225
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Knaight's Avatar

    Join Date
    Aug 2008

    Default Re: Why all the hate on dual wielding?

    Quote Originally Posted by Kryx View Post
    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.
    Seeing as I never claimed that in the first place, no, I'm not providing math for it. Here's my actual claim:
    1) The DPR model used for analysis is imperfect, and one of the imperfections is the way it doesn't take damage overflow into account.

    That's not even slightly the same claim as:
    2) The 5e designers deliberately reduced TWF to make it comparable to other options because of the way other options were weaker than they appear given the simple DPR model.

    That second claim is a reasonable paraphrase of what you are saying I'm saying,

    Quote Originally Posted by Kryx View Post
    "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.
    Again, I never claimed that TWF was up to par with other martial options. I claimed that the DPR model was simplified, put forth an edge case where it demonstrably breaks down, and then used that to indicate the difference between the argument that TWF gave options and the argument that just hitting for less damage gave options.
    I would really like to see a game made by Obryn, Kurald Galain, and Knaight from these forums.

    I'm not joking one bit. I would buy the hell out of that.
    -- ChubbyRain

    Current Design Project: Legacy, a game of masters and apprentices for two players and a GM.

  16. - Top - End - #226
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    DwarfClericGuy

    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Location
    SoCal
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Why all the hate on dual wielding?

    Quote Originally Posted by Cybren View Post
    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.
    Which I am saying is to your experience. Playing since 1974, my experience is different. People were playing Drow before that.

  17. - Top - End - #227
    Pixie in the Playground
     
    DruidGuy

    Join Date
    Apr 2017

    Default Re: Why all the hate on dual wielding?

    Clearly, TWF is inferior by the numbers in nearly every case.

    The real probably in my mind is this: in my imagination and TWF is usually gracefully cutting their way through the battlefield with parries and slashes as they step through multiple combatants. Mechanically, 5e TWF is especially bad for this type of character since by blocking your bonus action it makes your character LESS mobile. The whole thing with TWF is that it doesn't even outperform other builds when it comes to what I imagine a quick, lithe dual weilder to be like. It doesn't do more attacks than other builds, it doesn't make my character an untouchable blur, and it doesn't let me leap quickly around the room.

    The rogue is the only serious dual wielder in this edition, and even then it competes with all of the rogue bonus actions!

    TWF is terrible both mechanically and, for me, in the imagination space where hero archetypes exist.

  18. - Top - End - #228
    Ogre in the Playground
    Join Date
    Nov 2013

    Default Re: Why all the hate on dual wielding?

    Quote Originally Posted by Knaight View Post
    Again, I never claimed that TWF was up to par with other martial options.
    You claimed TWF is in its current state due to "damage overflow":

    Quote Originally Posted by Knaight View Post
    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.
    You provided no mathematical backing and still provide none. My complicated DPR/KPR and even my forum math shows that your claim has no merit as PAM does more damage with the same number of attacks. There is nothing there that can be lost in the "DPR for comparison purposes don't necessarily hold well for an actual game" claim.

    You've made a claim that is not supported by even the simple math of the game.
    Last edited by Kryx; 2017-07-25 at 07:00 AM.

  19. - Top - End - #229
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Tanarii's Avatar

    Join Date
    Sep 2015

    Default Re: Why all the hate on dual wielding?

    Quote Originally Posted by Matrix_Walker View Post
    Sounds like someone should start a new thread... talk about some obscure character has nothing to do with the topic at hand.
    Rangers, Animal Companions, TWF, and the popularity of Drizzt are all the same topic. That's the point.

    (But yeah, we got pretty badly off topic.)

    Quote Originally Posted by Knaight View Post
    Here's my actual claim:
    1) The DPR model used for analysis is imperfect, and one of the imperfections is the way it doesn't take damage overflow into account.
    Yup. Not only can DPR analysis can involve a huge amount of unspoken assumptions to arrive at the final number. But it also overlooks less tangible benefits and downsides. The upside is it's a fixed calculable value.

    That appeals to a certain analytical mindset, and certainly is useful for disproving incorrect claims, like (for example) a claim that TWF holds up for Fighters after level 11. The downside is people often overly focus on it as the only thing of importance, since other factors are either incalculable or less solidly a metric of comparison.

    However I think it's fair to say that comparing TWF to any other fighting style, when Feat support and multiclassing are on the table, just generally doesn't stack up well. Even considering the totality of all factors, those with easy metrics and those without. Except for Rogues. Its especially egregious for single class Fighters, who have it as an available Fighting Style.

  20. - Top - End - #230
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    Petrocorus's Avatar

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    France
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Why all the hate on dual wielding?

    Hello,
    I'm sorry, i might have misunderstood this, but what do you guys call "damage overflow"?
    Que tous les anciens dieux et les nouveaux protègent la France.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sam K View Post
    Sun Tzu never had tier problems. If he had to deal with D&D, the Art of War would read "Full casters or GTFO".
    Quote Originally Posted by King Louis XIII in The Musketeers
    Common sense is for commoners, not for [ PC ].

  21. - Top - End - #231
    Titan in the Playground
     
    DrowGuy

    Join Date
    Jul 2008

    Default Re: Why all the hate on dual wielding?

    Quote Originally Posted by Petrocorus View Post
    Hello,
    I'm sorry, i might have misunderstood this, but what do you guys call "damage overflow"?
    Damage overflow is the damage in excess of reducing someones hp to 0. If they have 5 and you hit for 11, that was 6 point of damage effectively wasted.
    "It doesn't matter how much you struggle or strive,
    You'll never get out of life alive,
    So please kill yourself and save this land,
    And your last mission is to spread my command,"

    Slightly adapted quote from X-Fusion, Please Kill Yourself

  22. - Top - End - #232
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    Chimera

    Join Date
    Dec 2015

    Default Re: Why all the hate on dual wielding?

    Quote Originally Posted by Petrocorus View Post
    Hello,
    I'm sorry, i might have misunderstood this, but what do you guys call "damage overflow"?
    Boci has it right with this:

    Quote Originally Posted by Boci View Post
    Damage overflow is the damage in excess of reducing someones hp to 0. If they have 5 and you hit for 11, that was 6 point of damage effectively wasted.
    And the added context is that there is an argument that having more smaller attacks is better because they can minimize damage overflow, even if the overall damage dealt is smaller. There is a theoretical space where this is the case. Let's say there was no random rolls for hp or damage. All the enemies have 8 hp. Player A gets 2 attacks that do 7 each, for a total of 14. Player B gets 3 attacks for 4 each, for a total of 12. It takes each player 2 hits to drop an opponent. Against 3 opponents, Player A takes 3 rounds to do this, while Player B takes 2 rounds, even though his damage output is lower. The problem is that, in a lot of 5e, it is more like player A dealing 7 pts. 2x a round and Player B dealing 4 pts 3x a round against 4 opponents, each with 50 hp (those darn bags o' hp everyone keeps complaining about). So taking 8 strikes at 2/rnd or 13 strikes at 3/rnd, well it looks like the overall average damage becomes a greater factor than any loss through damage overflow.

    So Knaight's point isn't wrong on the level of "things other than statistical average DPR are important to a real-gaming analysis." That's correct and he's good to have seen beyond the white-room analysis to recognize it. However, the setup of the game, as it works, based on the opponents and how they are constructed, tends to work against the advantage of the adaptability he is espousing as the benefit that redeems dual-wielding.
    Last edited by Willie the Duck; 2017-07-25 at 01:33 PM. Reason: just formatting

  23. - Top - End - #233
    Ettin in the Playground
    Join Date
    Sep 2014

    Default Re: Why all the hate on dual wielding?

    The trouble with lots of smaller attacks is that TWF only gets one more attack than a great weapon, and that only some of the time due to GWM. The number of attacks equals that of PM, and PM can benefit from either Dueling or GWF to increase its damage.

    In short, TWF only has that advantage in a featless game. And in that case, the smaller damage die means critical hits are considerably less impressive.
    Last edited by Easy_Lee; 2017-07-25 at 12:04 PM.

  24. - Top - End - #234
    Titan in the Playground
     
    DrowGuy

    Join Date
    Jul 2008

    Default Re: Why all the hate on dual wielding?

    Quote Originally Posted by Willie the Duck View Post
    Boci has it right with this:



    And the added context is that there is an argument that having more smaller attacks is better because they can minimize damage overflow, even if the overall damage dealt is smaller. There is a theoretical space where this is the case. Let's say there was no random rolls for hp or damage. All the enemies have 8 hp. Player A gets 2 attacks that do 7 each, for a total of 14. Player B gets 3 attacks for 4 each. It takes each player 2 hits to drop
    an opponent. Against 3 opponents, Player A takes 3 rounds to do this, while Player B takes 2 rounds, even though his damage output is lower. The problem is that, in a lot of 5e, it is more like player A dealing 7 pts. 2x a round and Player B dealing 4 pts 3x a round against 4 opponents, each with 50 hp (those darn bags o' hp everyone keeps complaining about). So taking 8 strikes at 2/rnd or 13 strikes at 3/rnd, well it looks like the overall average damage becomes a greater factor than any loss through damage overflow.

    So Knaight's point isn't wrong on the level of "things other than statistical average DPR are important to a real-gaming analysis." That's correct and he's good to have seen beyond the white-room analysis to recognize it. However, the setup of the game, as it works, based on the opponents and how they are constructed, tends to work against the advantage of the adaptability he is espousing as the benefit that redeems dual-wielding.
    Yeah, dual wielding is better against goblins and kobolds and other small beans, but after that brief window at low levels, its no longer applicable. You may overkill by more, but you'll also kill sooner. If the game had minions like in 4th ed, dual wielding might be more useful. Ironically enough, of the 3 editions I know of, 3.5, 4th and 5th, 4th ed, the ones whose mechanics most lent themselves towards giving dual weapon fighting a use, was the only one where wielding two weapons didn't give you an extra attack.
    "It doesn't matter how much you struggle or strive,
    You'll never get out of life alive,
    So please kill yourself and save this land,
    And your last mission is to spread my command,"

    Slightly adapted quote from X-Fusion, Please Kill Yourself

  25. - Top - End - #235
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    Kobold

    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Euphonistan
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Why all the hate on dual wielding?

    Quote Originally Posted by Boci View Post
    Yeah, dual wielding is better against goblins and kobolds and other small beans, but after that brief window at low levels, its no longer applicable. You may overkill by more, but you'll also kill sooner. If the game had minions like in 4th ed, dual wielding might be more useful. Ironically enough, of the 3 editions I know of, 3.5, 4th and 5th, 4th ed, the ones whose mechanics most lent themselves towards giving dual weapon fighting a use, was the only one where wielding two weapons didn't give you an extra attack.
    Except it would not work because by RAW right now assuming you use feats two weapon fighting does not get more attacks than GWF so it still does not have that niche. This is on top of the action economy issues and the less damage in general.

    Remember damage overflow is really only pertinent if the dealing lesser damage is a trade for an advantage in some way. Getting more attack s could have been an advantage but the problem is that it does not actually get that advantage so in fact damage overflow is superfluous currently.

    In 4e wielding two weapons did not natively give you an extra attack but it did open you up potentially to powers that gave multiple attacks that required two weapons (most famously twin strike) which were very powerful. However wasting your twin strike on minions would be usually a bad idea and it would be better to use controller type attacks (AOE) or defender (though the defender fighter two weapon at will dual strike was a decent choice to use on a minion but that was due to it being unable to attack only one target).
    A vestige for me "Pyro火gnus Friend of Meepo" by Zaydos.

    http://www.giantitp.com/forums/shows...5&postcount=26

  26. - Top - End - #236
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    Dudu's Avatar

    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Porto Alegre, Brazil
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Why all the hate on dual wielding?

    Quote Originally Posted by Willie the Duck View Post
    So Knaight's point isn't wrong on the level of "things other than statistical average DPR are important to a real-gaming analysis." That's correct and he's good to have seen beyond the white-room analysis to recognize it. However, the setup of the game, as it works, based on the opponents and how they are constructed, tends to work against the advantage of the adaptability he is espousing as the benefit that redeems dual-wielding.
    ^This

    A quick check at monsters and enemies stats will show those usually have lower AC and highter HP than players. So, in the end, the TWF isn't killing multiple enemies, even if those enemies were supposed to be low challenge. He is more likely hacking one enemy's HP slowly.

    I'm of the opinion TWF needs a rewrite, period. It's a clearly inferior option no matter how you look at it. Basically everyone has a better use of bonus action than slashing aways for some 4 avg damage. Whatever you want to do, there is a fighting style that does it better. It's truly messed up.
    Spoiler: Current Characters
    Show
    Nicollo Corleone - The Scoundrel Malconvoker

    Dante Levasseur - The Crimsom Inquisitor (avatar) and his Lumi cohort, Eveline Dawn now being followed by an old acquaintance, Aurora, the voice of Barachiel.

    Minaerva - The Wild Caller from Rokiri Island.


    Requiem Macabre Doc

  27. - Top - End - #237
    Titan in the Playground
     
    DrowGuy

    Join Date
    Jul 2008

    Default Re: Why all the hate on dual wielding?

    Quote Originally Posted by MeeposFire View Post
    Except it would not work because by RAW right now assuming you use feats two weapon fighting does not get more attacks than GWF so it still does not have that niche. This is on top of the action economy issues and the less damage in general.
    Yes, I wasn't assuming feats at first level. Without them, the dual weapon fighter gets an extra attack, and each attack has the damage to knock a kobold.
    "It doesn't matter how much you struggle or strive,
    You'll never get out of life alive,
    So please kill yourself and save this land,
    And your last mission is to spread my command,"

    Slightly adapted quote from X-Fusion, Please Kill Yourself

  28. - Top - End - #238
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    OrcBarbarianGuy

    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Location
    Vinland
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Why all the hate on dual wielding?

    Quote Originally Posted by Easy_Lee View Post
    The trouble with lots of smaller attacks is that TWF only gets one more attack than a great weapon, and that only some of the time due to GWM. The number of attacks equals that of PM, and PM can benefit from either Dueling or GWF to increase its damage.

    In short, TWF only has that advantage in a featless game. And in that case, the smaller damage die means critical hits are considerably less impressive.
    Yup, and Damage Overflow is just a side effect of triggering that bonus action from GWM you might waste some damage, but you gain a big bonus attack. Bigger than TWF and the PM bonus attack you likely would have been getting anyway.

  29. - Top - End - #239
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    NecromancerGuy

    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Why all the hate on dual wielding?

    Maybe rewrite the feat to allowing a another attack everytime you hit with main hand, so say you had extra attack, you hit once with attack action, BA hit with other weapon, extra attack, then another other weapon attack. But still limit to light weapons, and you have to land the first attack to trigger a second attack?

    Not sure what kind of problems something like this would create, but other options would include
    -making twf more mobile
    -making twf have a better defensive option
    -a different way to make twf have more attacks or cost no BA.

    Realistically we all know that twfing isn't very good, but this is fantasy so it should be good as anything else if not amazing. I don't play D&D to simulate reality, I play to be as bad*** as every twfer on screen (or book Entreri>Drizzt )

  30. - Top - End - #240
    Ettin in the Playground
    Join Date
    Dec 2014

    Default Re: Why all the hate on dual wielding?

    Quote Originally Posted by Mortis_Elrod View Post
    Maybe rewrite the feat to allowing a another attack everytime you hit with main hand, so say you had extra attack, you hit once with attack action, BA hit with other weapon, extra attack, then another other weapon attack. But still limit to light weapons, and you have to land the first attack to trigger a second attack?

    Not sure what kind of problems something like this would create, but other options would include
    -making twf more mobile
    -making twf have a better defensive option
    -a different way to make twf have more attacks or cost no BA.

    Realistically we all know that twfing isn't very good, but this is fantasy so it should be good as anything else if not amazing. I don't play D&D to simulate reality, I play to be as bad*** as every twfer on screen (or book Entreri>Drizzt )
    doubling the number of attacks is a bit too much.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •