Dual-weapon fighting is extremely lackluster

[BobTheNob]

Given the 'always round down' rule (not sure if it's in 5e, but it was in 3e and 4e), TWF as written will do less damage, period.

I love it when people put "period" at the end of a post, lets me know who they are.

Yes, rounding down will result in less...on average .5 points per round. When we are up to 40+ damage per round thats going to have a MASSIVE impact.

On another note, one advantage of TWF is when you need to finish off that creature with 1-2 HP. You just have to scratch him and this gives you two shots at it.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

If your opponents is such a fool as to raise two thrusting/parrying weapons above his head, where they are no immediate threat and guard none of the body, does it matter what weapon you are using? And why would you care about a dagger in your right shoulder if you are hit at the same time with a rapier in the head?

 

[Celestian]

I read the dual wielding rules and one word came to mind for me.

"Boring".

Mathematically it might be balanced or whatever but it is really boring and redundant for most gameplay.

 

[Rhenny]

I was actually fine with 4e's flat +1 to damage for having a weapon in the off-hand. I'd actually prefer something like that to this roll twice, do half damage thing.

If they did something like letting you make two attacks, but the damage dice are reduced, say, 2 steps, or 1 step if your off hand is a light weapon, and you only add half a strength bonus or dex bonus, I'd be fine with it.

As it is, I have 3 issues with it as written...

1) it does not encourage the use of a dagger in the off hand over two equal sized weapons

2) the requirement to only use finesse weapons means you're stuck with smaller damage dice already (esp. compared to its otherwise identical feat, rapid shot).

3) Depending on how the division is done, your damage can be reduced by how you figure your damage. Consider, two rapiers, +3 stat bonus. 1d6+3 divided by two round down, the max damage is *8*.

As an alternative, might I suggest...

Dual Wielder

You are trained in using a weapon in either hand.

Effect: when you are using a finesse weapon in either hand, or a dagger or hand axe in the off-hand, and you hit, you may roll the damage dice for both weapons and use whichever one is greater.

You'd lose the ability to attack two targets (I'd design some higher level feat for that), and you wouldn't do more damage than with one weapon, but your average would be a little higher.

Upper level feats: some kind of cleave that allows you to attack more than one opponent with your two weapons, and eventually the ability to use two one-handed, non-finessable weapons.

Good idea. Perhaps you could make it so that if you want to split the damage between two adjacent foes, you could.

 

[triqui]

If your opponents is such a fool as to raise two thrusting/parrying weapons above his head, where they are no immediate threat and guard none of the body, does it matter what weapon you are using? And why would you care about a dagger in your right shoulder if you are hit at the same time with a rapier in the head?

Because the dagger came first, and the rapier hit later? That's the point of Vizcaina's. They were used to attack below the guard, as well as used to guard and block.

 

[Manbearcat]

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.

Good post here and agreed on all.

The 4 primary fighting styles (Two-weapon, Two-Handed, Sword and Shield, One-Handed Fencing/Duelist) need to all be supported and balanced with each other so there are no "trap"/sub-optimal options amongst them nor any clearly superior/optimal options. They need to have varying mechanics that emulate the distinctiveness (advantages, focus) of each of the styles both in combat and its accompanying fiction.

This present iteration of TWF provides "melee controller" versatility in that it allows the combatant to possibly fell two low HP enemies in a "swarm melee" or "mass combat" scenario. May need another pass (and more diversity and potency down in the feat tree) but it is both useful and seems to adequately represent the style.

As ever, I would be more concerned that the One-handed Duelist/Fencing style is marginalized to irrelevancy due to (continued) lack of support (hence my update to the Swashbuckler/Duelist thread).

 

[1of3]

I wonder how the the feat compares to Rapid Shot. They are mechanically the same, just with different weapons.

So far I see the following advantages for Rapid Shot:

- Ranged combat, less danger to the character.
- Only one magic weapon required instead of two.
- Larger damage die, d10 instead of d6.

Two-weapon fighting might be more interesting, if you are a fighter and want to perform maneuvers that only work in melee, but that's it, I guess.

 

[Jeff Carlsen]

I wonder how the the feat compares to Rapid Shot. They are mechanically the same, just with different weapons.

So far I see the following advantages for Rapid Shot:

- Ranged combat, less danger to the character.
- Only one magic weapon required instead of two.
- Larger damage die, d10 instead of d6.

Two-weapon fighting might be more interesting, if you are a fighter and want to perform maneuvers that only work in melee, but that's it, I guess.

Like always, applying the same abstractions used in melee to ranged combat becomes awkward. A melee attack is more than just the single swing of a sword, so splitting damage between the weapons kind of works. But each attack with a ranged weapon is a single shot. If you fire two shots at a single target, there should be the possibility of two arrows penetrating them. It really needs to do extra damage in some manner.

On the whole, I think it's best if the designers stop trying to mirror ranged and melee abilities. Let them be somewhat different abstractions.

 

[Jupp]

I know we are talking RPG and fantasy here but still:

Fighting with standard medieveal long blade weapons in each hand is the last thing you want to do in combat (I wont cover asian fighting styles here because those weapons very different). Longswords are too heavy for dual wielding to effectively use them and this combination is going to kill you against opponents with a shield/sword combination, even more so if they are properly armored. Because since you have to equalize the momentum of one sword with the other you are mostly using slashing movements and not thrusts, which is the stuff that penetrates armor. You always have to preserve the equilibrium between your two weapons else you loose balance, which will get you killed for sure in a very short time. You have to deal with the same situation with dual-wielding axes. Blunt weapons might be a better choice because there you do not really have thrusting movements.

The only few sensible dual wielding combinations are dagger/sword or rapier/dagger but there the dagger is mostly used for parrying or thrusting/slashing on the lower regions of the body while the other weapons is controlling the opponent's main weapon.

Those are some of the many reasons I never really liked the dual-wielding rules in 3e or 4e. They were just ridiculous, like magic and all that stuff

So the dual wield rules in 5e are totally ok for me.

 

[Ellington]

My take on how it should be:

Regular dual wielding doesn't give you any extra damage from your associated ability score. That's what you get for not knowing how to dual wield.

If you do have the feat, you get to add your STR/DEX bonus to your main hand weapon. So if both weapons were to hit, you'd be dealing around 2d6+STR/DEX, much like someone who's wielding a two handed weapon.