D&D 5E Two-Weapon Fighting Style seems ... bad

[Mouseferatu]

That would be a funny way to balance it since you could just go Dex based Duelist with a shield and still do more damage than a TWF with the same benefits and higher AC.

How do you figure more damage? IIRC, the duelist style gives you +2 to damage, right? And dual-wielding style lets you apply your modifier to the off-hand attack.

Let's assume 16 Dex for both. So, wielding a rapier, it's 1d8 +3 Dex +2. Averages 9.5.

Dual-wielder using two short swords or scimitars, 1d6 + 1d6 +6 (Dex twice). Averages 13.

Duelist has better AC, with the shield, but the dual-wielder has not just higher average damage, but a chance to at least deal some damage if the first one misses.

I think it's a fair trade. Or am I missing something?

 

[Dausuul]

I think it's a fair trade. Or am I missing something?

You're only calculating at 1st level. As soon as Extra Attack kicks in, the dual wielder's advantage mostly evaporates.

Dual Shortsword Fighter:
Level 1-3: 13
Level 4: 15
Level 5: 22.5
Level 6-10: 25.5
Level 11-19: 34
Level 20: 42.5

Rapier and Shield Fighter:
Level 1-3: 9.5
Level 4: 10.5
Level 5: 21
Level 6-10: 23
Level 11-19: 34.5
Level 20: 46

Once more, dual wielders rule the roost from 1-4. From 5-10, they're pretty well balanced (10% more damage for the dual wielder, versus +2 AC for the sword-and-board). Then from 11-20, they're substantially weaker than their single-weapon counterparts.

 

[GrumpyGamer]

How do you figure more damage? IIRC, the duelist style gives you +2 to damage, right? And dual-wielding style lets you apply your modifier to the off-hand attack.

Let's assume 16 Dex for both. So, wielding a rapier, it's 1d8 +3 Dex +2. Averages 9.5.

Dual-wielder using two short swords or scimitars, 1d6 + 1d6 +6 (Dex twice). Averages 13.

Duelist has better AC, with the shield, but the dual-wielder has not just higher average damage, but a chance to at least deal some damage if the first one misses.

I think it's a fair trade. Or am I missing something?

You are correct for lower levels but at higher levels Duelist catches up.

For example at 11th level:
twf - 4 x 1d6+5 (4x8.5) = 34
d - 3 x 1d8+7 (3x11.5) = 34.5

Of course both will not hit 100% of the time. It is also worth noting that the duelist will do more damage at 11th level using action surge than a twf.

Edit: Dausuul beat me to it.

 

[Mouseferatu]

Okay, fair enough, but...

That means the TWF ranges from more damage than the duelist to about equal, with the duelist pulling ahead with any meaningful numbers only at 20th.

That still leaves the TWF with more opportunities to hit, vs. a +2 AC advantage for the duelist. I'm still pretty willing to call that a wash, as opposed to one being markedly better than the other. Emphasis on "markedly"; I'm not saying there's no difference, just that it doesn't really seem to me to be a significant one.

 

[The Black Ranger]

I think what people are missing is that fighting with two weapons is awesome looking.

To be honest, I think that's what this edition is actually going for. I think the whole DPR thing is supposed to get left behind while the focus is on the character itself.

 

[TwoSix]

To be honest, I think that's what this edition is actually going for. I think the whole DPR thing is supposed to get left behind while the focus is on the character itself.

As long as we geeks love math, ain't gonna happen.

 

[Mouseferatu]

Some of us hate math, thank you very much.

Let's also consider that we're only looking at this in the context of the fighter. As soon as you start looking at the ranger--who doesn't get three or four attacks--it changes the whole equation.

 

[Dausuul]

Okay, fair enough, but...

That means the TWF ranges from more damage than the duelist to about equal, with the duelist pulling ahead with any meaningful numbers only at 20th.

That still leaves the TWF with more opportunities to hit, vs. a +2 AC advantage for the duelist. I'm still pretty willing to call that a wash, as opposed to one being markedly better than the other.

Four attack rolls per round instead of three isn't adding much to your reliability; certainly not worth +2 AC. I'd say the TWF falls clearly behind from level 11 onward.

Although things do change in a campaign which is generous with the magic loot. If you can get two magic weapons with riders on a hit (e.g., flame tongue swords), then the TWF becomes a lot stronger.

Let's also consider that we're only looking at this in the context of the fighter. As soon as you start looking at the ranger--who doesn't get three or four attacks--it changes the whole equation.

True, but the fighter specifically includes a two-weapon fighting option, so even if the ranger does a better job keeping up (which I expect it will), that doesn't excuse flaws in the fighter build.

 

[Tony Vargas]

It's an interesting theory, and I agree that Dex, as ever, is "das uberstat" in 5E. However, if this really is what they had in mind, it's not very well thought-out. The TWF can reliably hit Dex 20 by level 6. The great weapon fighter doesn't jump ahead on damage till level 11.

Maybe feats figure into it? (They're optional so it's a stretch.) Or maybe they were thinking of less intensive build choices than stat-20 by level 6, and didn't want to 'punish' them, even if it meant letting the fast-track get away with something?

IDK, the idea (which I'm not taking credit for) postulates a very convoluted approach to balance-of-imbalances so there'd be even more to it than just DEX vs STR and TWF vs GWF, leading to a lot of individual features that look better or worse 'on paper' than they perform in play.

Levels 3-10 are the "core" levels where campaigns spend most of their time (the XP table is designed to fast-forward you through levels 1-2, and most campaigns run out of juice before getting into the high levels). Any balancing solution that doesn't work in the 6-10 range is missing 5/8ths of the core.

There's no guarantee campaigns are going to fold in the double-digit levels. In past editions, that was very often the case, but those editions didn't work so well at high level. If 5e does a better job at extending the 'sweet spot,' like 4e did, then it'll likely see more high-level play. They do seem to be /trying/ to address some perennial problems with high level play, like LFQW.

 

[Crothian]

To be honest, I think that's what this edition is actually going for. I think the whole DPR thing is supposed to get left behind while the focus is on the character itself.

I think people posting numbers and analysis of DPR as if it is the only factor that matter really miss the point of what an RPG is. I have never seen a campaign that rolling the highest damage matters.