D&D 5E How many attacks should a two weapon fighter get?

[Celtavian]

And optimization is about figuring out which way you can make a character concept do the most damage, be the best at skills, etc. Seriously, I understand that not everyone cares about optimization, but...

The barbarian is literally designed to use big weapons like the great axe. A berzerker would never want to touch two short swords, even at low levels. A totem barbarian could conceivably pull it off, though there is a diminishing return on the off-hand attack with low dice in light of things like a polearm, which adds the strength bonus to the hit. The class is simply not designed to support two weapons.

The Ranger? We know from recent articles that the Ranger spells are a necessary part of the classes design in terms of damage. TWF uses the same bonus action all those spells do. A Ranger Duelist using a shield and rapier and Hunter Marks will have superior damage and superior AC to someone just relying on TWF. The support for a TWF Ranger just doesn't work.

A Rogue? Any time you want to use two weapons, you are constantly trying to decide if its worth the loss of that turn's Cunning Action. There's too many bonus actions choices from the very beginning. And if you do hit with your main attack, is there a point to using that off-hand attack?

The Fighter is the only class that really can make good use of two weapon fighting, and that's assuming that we're not using War Magic or Bonus Action Maneuvers with any frequency.



So, in the case of two weapon fighting, its not just a case of realizing character concepts. Its that the mechanics in the game make it difficult to actually achieve and execute any concept that involves two weapon fighting since that bonus action is always so busy with other options critical to the concept.

With the way the game is set up, its not a question of "this way does does more damage." Its a question of "can you even do it with the action economy?"

Without GWM, you could make an interesting TWF barbarian around strength.

Let's say your barbarian decides to use a battle axe and hand axes. The bonus from the rage ability stacks with your bonus action attack. If you did a multiclass fighter/ranger and barbarian that liked to fight battle axe and hand axe , you could get damage numbers that look something like this at around level 10 or so:

Two attacks 1d8+8 and 1d6+8 for 36

compared to

Greatsword: Two Attacks: 2d6+8 for 30 damage.

You could have ready access to a thrown weapon all the time. You could make a pretty cool fighter/ranger barbarian totem warrior.

Frenzied not as much. Then again you don't want to use Frenzy too much. That level of fatigue per use is harsh.

I actually might try this with the feat that gives the same benefits as GWM for single-handed weapons. It could be interesting for a barbarian. If I take both TWF mastery feat and Dueling Mastery house rule feat, I could get +1 AC and wield two battle axes. I've always wanted to make a dual battleaxe wielding dwarf.

 

[Staffan]

Two-hander fighting sucked in open combat as well. If you were fighting in a big battle with a two-handed weapon, you were likely going to die. Sword and board is probably the predominant fighting style until the advent of plate armor because knights learned to use plate in the same fashion they used shields. It took stronger blows to punch through plate. Even then it was versatile weapons that were most popular because being able to use your off-hand for other things like guiding a horse or grabbing your opponent was important.

True. I think it's somewhat more encouraged in D&D both because of images of barbarians wielding two-handed swords and/or axes and looking real badass doing it, and because combat in D&D isn't particularly lethal, so you often want that 10-20% or so extra damage you get from two-handers over sword+shield.

If you were good at TWF, you were a serious badass. The off-hand weapon in Fencing was quite popular and acted as a shield for parrying blows. A good TWF knew how to use his off-hand weapon in a defensive manner often as effective as a shield. They should have done something like that with TWF.

They kind of did, with the feat: if you have the dual-wielder feat you get +1 AC when dual-wielding. So, not quite as good as a shield, but something.

But as I understand it, rapier + dagger was developed for use in situations where carrying a light weapon or two would be acceptable, but not a heavy sword and a shield. I would expect that between two equally well-trained warriors, one focusing on rapier + dagger and the other on broadsword + shield, the dual-wielder would be mincemeat.

 

[Celtavian]

True. I think it's somewhat more encouraged in D&D both because of images of barbarians wielding two-handed swords and/or axes and looking real badass doing it, and because combat in D&D isn't particularly lethal, so you often want that 10-20% or so extra damage you get from two-handers over sword+shield.


They kind of did, with the feat: if you have the dual-wielder feat you get +1 AC when dual-wielding. So, not quite as good as a shield, but something.

But as I understand it, rapier + dagger was developed for use in situations where carrying a light weapon or two would be acceptable, but not a heavy sword and a shield. I would expect that between two equally well-trained warriors, one focusing on rapier + dagger and the other on broadsword + shield, the dual-wielder would be mincemeat.

Yep on both counts.

Shield was an amazing defensive device vastly underestimated in most games. Getting around a shield with a weapon was difficult. That's why the Romans developed the pilum to punch through it and weight it down. Shield walls were amazingly effective as well. Mobile archery somewhat mitigated this in the open field. For ground armies versus ground armies the sword and board combination was king. A skilled sword and board guy in armor as well was nearly invulnerable against any other type of fighting style. A good shield wielder could pin other weapons or use his shield to open his opponent to attack. A greatsword guy might swing down on a shield user, have the shield user deflect his blow, drive it outside his body, and then go inside to stab or hack him. Once the two-handed weapon was put in a bad position, recovery for defense was difficult at best.

As you said, D&D isn't lethal and doesn't mirror real combat. It's cinematic. Another reason I'd like to see TWF brought up to snuff with other fighting styles. Cinematic TWF is supposed to be highly effective and looks very cool.

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

What if we changed the two weapon fighting style to let you take an extra attack when you take the attack action, instead of (but not in addition to) as a bonus action? So a TWF ranger could still use a bonus action spell, an action surging fighter would effectively get 2 off hand attacks, etc? Or even just as a general change, so a rogue could dual wield AND use their cunning action?

I also like the idea of allowing TWF feat let you make an extra reaction in a round, with the stipulation that it is an attack. The feat is kind of weak since one of its features is something that I feel should be ignored anyways given the abstract action economy.

 

[redrick]

What if we changed the two weapon fighting style to let you take an extra attack when you take the attack action, instead of (but not in addition to) as a bonus action? So a TWF ranger could still use a bonus action spell, an action surging fighter would effectively get 2 off hand attacks, etc? Or even just as a general change, so a rogue could dual wield AND use their cunning action?

I also like the idea of allowing TWF feat let you make an extra reaction in a round, with the stipulation that it is an attack. The feat is kind of weak since one of its features is something that I feel should be ignored anyways given the abstract action economy.

I don't think rogues need any further incentives to dual wield. It's basically free for them, since they're already using finesse weapons. Choosing to cunningly act (or fast hands for a thief) vs a bonus off-hand attack is just one more option that plays into the flexibility of the class. Do you take another go with your off-hand dagger, hopefully getting that all-important sneak attack, or do you use a bonus action to disengage and get the hell out of there?

I guess I could see buffing it a bit for TWF fighters and rangers if those guys are having major inferiority complexes at your table. One extra attack on an action surge does not seem game-breaking. I'm not sure exactly what it would do for rangers — our ranger has the archery fighting style, since we are already full in the front line department, and that +2 to hit is nothing to sneeze at.

I think the problem with the TWF feat is less that it's ineffective, and more that it's just super boring. +1 to AC and the ability to use non-light weapons is a static bonus that will improve your character in every round of combat. Bonuses to AC are very expensive in this game, so being able to get to 18 AC while wearing light armor is pretty great. Going from two 1d6 weapons to two 1d8 weapons will also bring the DPR of an 11th level fighter pretty much in line with the GWF fighter. (I think it becomes 38 for TWF vs 39 for GWF?) The bit about being able to draw two weapons at a time is just there as insurance for tables that are stricter with their free action economy. Unfortunately, what you're left with is boring. It doesn't do anything to change the way your character plays; it just makes them a bit better at the TWF schtick they're already doing. The only difference in "feel" is that now you can dual-wield non-light weapons, which, honestly, just feels silly. What does dual-wielding rapiers look like?

I'm thinking about house-ruling the feat so that light weapons do a step-up in damage dice when used in melee. The only extra consequence of this would be that daggers and hand-axes can be used at d6 in melee, but also thrown, but I think that would be ok.

The GWM feat, by contrast, doesn't come up every combat for us, but when it does come up, the fighter feels like he is doing something cool. Which I think is the purpose of 5e feats.

 

[Larac]

For a TWF one build I like is having a thrown weapon in the off hand.
Gives a bit more use out of that extra attack.

 

[redrick]

Thinking more about the Dual Wielder feat. For a Dex fighter, taking this feat confers the same combat bonuses that would come from a +2 Dex boost. (+1 to AC, and +1 to average damage on each attack.) Without the bonuses to skills or saves. So, until a character has already maxed out dex, the feat seems to be unquestionably inferior. Am I thinking this through right?

So the feat probably could use a little more oomph. Probably something a little flashier than a static boost.

 

[guachi]

Yes, so at level 11, the disparity between a great-sword fighter and a short-sword fighter becomes 5 damage per round. That's probably noticeable. (Our game is currently at level 7, so I haven't seen this in play.) This is, of course, assuming that your fighters have both maxed their prime stat by level 11, which they've certainly had plenty of opportunities to do. (It's also worth pointing out that giving the two-weapon fighter an extra bonus attack at level 11 would mean putting the two-weapon fighter back ahead of the gwf, since a short sword is worth about 8.5 damage per hit, which is probably not what we want.)

But, considering the extra flexibility the dex fighter gets, the 5 point spread might be worth it for the extra versatility. The dex fighter will have an AC of 17 in light armor — that's one point below the clanking plate mail on the strength fighter. The dex fighter will be able to double freely as an archer, and will quite possibly have picked up the archery style by now. (Remember all those threads about how fighting dragons is a spell tax on the wizard because the fighter is useless unless somebody casts "fly" on him?) The dex fighter will be much better suited against fireballs, breath weapons and any other dex save-y things. And the dex-fighter is going to be great at sneaking ahead with the rogue, before the plate and chain squad charge in.

Again, if dpr is all you want, from level 5 on, go GWF. End of discussion. If you want to play a dex fighter and take advantage of all that comes with that, I think TWF is totally do-able. You'll have more attacks, action surge, and better ability scores (or more feats) than the two weapon ranger. (Who makes up for it in spell-casting and utility.)

I suppose a possibility is to grant your house-ruled second bonus attack no ability score to damage. The GWF is averaging 40 damage and the TWF averages 34 damage. Add a short sword's 1d6 with no ability bonus and you are at 37.5. Less damage by 2.5 points on average but you get two more attacks for added versatility.

Or just tell the TWF he gets all the other bonuses you mentioned - better archer, better saves, better initiative and tell him to suck it up. Of course, he could have just taken duelist and use a rapier and shield and he'd be better than TWF in damage, AC, and he'd have a bonus action left.

TWF isn't a bad idea for a rogue, though. An extra possible attack to get a sneak attack in is very valuable and can really boost your damage.

 

[guachi]

Also, I'd like to point out that nobody gets to "use a bonus action" every round. It's not something everyone just "gets". Its a specific action that someone may get if something in the game gives it to them. You can only have one bonus action in a round..

To be pedantic, this isn't correct. You get one bonus action on your turn, not one bonus action a round. It's possible to take more than one turn in a round and thus have more than one bonus action in a round. The only example I can actually think of, though, is a 17+ level Thief who can take two turns on the first round of combat.

 

[aramis erak]

Thinking more about the Dual Wielder feat. For a Dex fighter, taking this feat confers the same combat bonuses that would come from a +2 Dex boost. (+1 to AC, and +1 to average damage on each attack.) Without the bonuses to skills or saves. So, until a character has already maxed out dex, the feat seems to be unquestionably inferior. Am I thinking this through right?

So the feat probably could use a little more oomph. Probably something a little flashier than a static boost.

Let's see...

Item	Dual Wielder	+2 Dex
To Hit modifier	+0	+1
AC change	+1	+0 (Heavy Armor; or, Dex 14+ and medium armor) or +1 (Light Armor; or dex ≤13 & medium armor)
Draw 2 weapons	1 interaction	2 interactions or 1 interaction +1 action
Allowed Weapons	1h-non-light and 1h-light or 2x 1h-light	2x 1h-light
Damage Change	+1 average from die-increase	+1 from attribute mod
Damage Max Change	+2 from die-increase	+1 from attribute mod
Crit Damage Change	+2 average from die-increase	none

The dual wielder gets more AC if they are a medium or heavy armor wearer. And if they are a dex-fighter, theyr'e going to already be maxed for medium, too, so the advantage is the dual wielder for anyone who wears medium or heavy armor.

Also, the drawing bonus means being able to make use of the extra damage NOW rather than next turn. So one extra attack. (not per round, just the one.)

There's no adding an attribute to the extra attack either way.
The crit damage increases on average by 1 (above non crit change) due to the increase in sides on the extra die.

Rogue's sneak attack bonus damage is a wash either way - it only adds to one attack.

So, not quite the same bonuses.