Dual-weapon fighting is extremely lackluster

[Halivar]

This is the biggest disappointment for me (even more than the lack of real multiclassing).

You get two attacks, both at half damage. This just doesn't even seem worth it to me.

A better system, IMHO, would be something like OSRIC (don't know if they got this from AD&D 1E or not), where you have -2/-4, offset by Dex bonuses. If it is published in it current state, I will most certainly house-rule it.

Can anyone tell me what benefits TWF as written confers?

 

[Ahnehnois]

Hopefully it will be kept under control. TWF has a checkered history in D&D, especially after one particular character that inspires eye rolls every time his name his mentioned. There isn't really that much of a basis in reality for it, but it's been adopted as a D&D-ism. The 3.X version slowed down play and could get really cheesy. Hopefully, they will finally render a version that is mechanically interesting but not preferable to two-handed weapons, sword-and-shield, or even one-handed duelist-style fighting.

Frankly the half damage thing seems like a good start.

 

[Frostmarrow]

Yeah. It seems designed to keep players away from the style. Not that I mind. I'm happy if a turn allows you to roll dice once.

 

[triqui]

This is the biggest disappointment for me (even more than the lack of real multiclassing).

You get two attacks, both at half damage. This just doesn't even seem worth it to me.

A better system, IMHO, would be something like OSRIC (don't know if they got this from AD&D 1E or not), where you have -2/-4, offset by Dex bonuses. If it is published in it current state, I will most certainly house-rule it.

Can anyone tell me what benefits TWF as written confers?

The benefit is that you are able to kill two goblins in a round, instead of one. When you face 10 goblins and a goblin shaman, being able to cut through the mooks in 5 rounds instead of 10 is a benefit.

TWF has always been hard to keep balanced. If you put a lot of hard cap malus, then it's a flurry of misses and not worth it. If you simply allow it to attack twice (or with a minor penalty), it does close to TWICE the damage output of 1 handed. That's what happened with 4e and Twin Strike.

With this configuration, 1h+shield gives you better armor. 2h gives you better single target damage. And TWF gives you better multiple target damage. I think it's a good solution.

 

[DEFCON 1]

The benefit is that you are able to kill two goblins in a round, instead of one.

TWF has always been hard to keep balanced. If you put a lot of hard cap malus, then it's a flurry of misses and not worth it. If you simply allow it to attack twice (or with a minor penalty), it does close to TWICE the damage output of 1 handed. That's what happened with 4e and Twin Strike.

With this configuration, 1h+shield gives you better armor. 2h gives you better single target damage. And TWF gives you better multiple target damage. I think it's a good solution.

Exactly. The only real downside is that you have to make two successful attack rolls in order to do the same amount of damage as a one-handed weapon person. But then again... you'll also be gaining the equivalent of a shield at 3rd level too.

And let's not forget that for all we know, the 6th and/or 9th level feats will bump that damage up for both weapons at some point (possibly removing the "halved" ruling down the road). But at least low-level dual wielders don't massively overshadow the others as we've had it happen in the past.

 

[Chronikoce]

I am torn over it myself. Since I really only ever play 3.x/PF twf has always been a poor choice unless you play a rogue. Since the current rogue has increased Sneak attack damage it seems that twf won't be necessary to be viable. Really the only benefits I can currently see for twf are the following.

1) Two weapons means you can have two different weapon enchants active once you get some magic items.

2) You can Attack two different targets in the same turn if you are adjacent to both. This could be fun if you sneak up on both and get sneak attack. Kinda makes for a double assassination feel.

I do appreciate that by doing this they are making the more realistic duelist style of combat a viable option.

 

[cynicaloptimist]

Two Weapon Fighting (and a similar benefit from Archery Mastery) are both good for rogues, because in some cases they can allow the character two chances to attack with advantage, and two chances to proc Sneak Attack. While sneak attack can only be used once a round, this makes it less likely you'll blow those sneak attack dice. If the half-damage effect would also half sneak attack damage, though, this isn't so good.

 

[Someone]

Can anyone tell me what benefits TWF as written confers?

It doubles your chances of hitting and inflicting a rider that happens on a hit. Five minutes after publishing, when we have enough splatbooks to give rogues three dozen ways to get advantage every turn, expect a lot of them dual wielding whips and perma-immobilizing your solos.

In any case, kudos at the design team for ignoring three decades of experience on how to break two weapon fighting. You simply do NOT increase the number of attack rolls. There are dozens of ways to implement two weapon fighting, beyong the assumption that attacking consist on "I'm going to shake my weapon like THIS. And if you happen to get into it's way it's your own fault!", and that therefore the more weapons you shake, the more chances of hitting you have.

 

[Transformer]

With this configuration, 1h+shield gives you better armor. 2h gives you better single target damage. And TWF gives you better multiple target damage. I think it's a good solution.

Assuming we're talking about a Fighter (or whatever) who would be focusing on Dexterity anyway, you're looking at:

• 1d6 damage and +1 AC with sword and board
• 1d8 damage with a two-hander
• 1d6 damage and the ability to split your attacks and potentially kill 2 mooks with dual wielding

Dual wielding also makes your single-target attacks slightly more flexible: you might elect to attack with both weapons if you want more consistent results or if you want to virtually guarantee a hit so you can use some extra effect, or you might attack with only one weapon if you want your attack to be swingier (i.e., if you think full damage will kill the enemy but half damage won't).


Still, the problem is that using sword and board or a two hander effectively doesn't cost you a feat. Is it worth the price of the feat? I'm not so sure. I kinda wish two-handed fighting like this were an option for everyone, and the actual 1st level feat gave it a little extra oomph somehow.

 

[triqui]

Exactly. The only real downside is that you have to make two successful attack rolls in order to do the same amount of damage as a one-handed weapon person. But then again... you'll also be gaining the equivalent of a shield at 3rd level too.

That's not really a downside, on average. It evens out with the fact that if you miss your first attack with both 1h and TWF, you still can do some damage with TWF. On average, it's the same.