What do you expect out of dual wielding?

[Blue]

In a fantasy game, what is the end result of what you expect from two weapon fighting vs. the other methods of melee fighting? This is assuming someone competent in the style.

I'm specifically looking which of these are important to you? For example, splitting damage might be an occasionally useful thing, but if 90% of the time you focus on killing a single opponent first then that's not a big deal.

 

[5ekyu]

In a fantasy game, what is the end result of what you expect from two weapon fighting vs. the other methods of melee fighting? This is assuming someone competent in the style.

I'm specifically looking which of these are important to you? For example, splitting damage might be an occasionally useful thing, but if 90% of the time you focus on killing a single opponent first then that's not a big deal.

I see TWF as the offense plus dex option for melee.

Sword shield is the defense option supporting either dex or str.
Greatsword is the strength offense option.
TWF is the offense with dex flavor option.

I would have rather 5e reflected this at base level by just making it a weapon property instead of light and bonus action.

TWF: When you take an attack action with a one-handed weapon while wielding this weapon in the other hand, you add this weapon's damage dice in as well if the attack hits.

The above approach removes the bonus atrack, the extra "hit chance" and seems a pretty decent trade-off for the shield AC.

Feats could add in other options.

Would also have limited it to d4 weapons in general so hour basic best is d8+d4+ability vs say 2d6 or d12 for the 2h.

But thats me.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

I expect a greater number of small attacks, providing a strong normalization effect. Total offensive output should be somewhere between sword+shield and greatsword. Greatswords should be balanced by whiffing more frequently.

Numerically speaking, I'd prefer it if dual-wielding gave something like a 90% chance of dealing 90 damage, where a greatsword had an 80% chance of dealing 100 damage (or something along those lines). And just for the sake of putting it on the scale, sword+shield should have an 80% chance of dealing 70 damage.

 

[MarkB]

I always picture dual-wielding as more the rapier-and-dagger style of Musketeers movies, rather than the two-equal-blades style of Drizzt. A main weapon primarily for attack, plus a secondary weapon mostly for parrying, but also to discourage an opponent from getting in close.

D&D doesn't do a great deal to simulate such a style, or indeed any form of swashbuckling - it makes no provision for weapons as a defensive tool. Even the UA Swashbuckler doesn't bring defensive tactics into the mix to any significant degree.

 

[Blue]

I always picture dual-wielding as more the rapier-and-dagger style of Musketeers movies, rather than the two-equal-blades style of Drizzt. A main weapon primarily for attack, plus a secondary weapon mostly for parrying, but also to discourage an opponent from getting in close.

D&D doesn't do a great deal to simulate such a style, or indeed any form of swashbuckling - it makes no provision for weapons as a defensive tool. Even the UA Swashbuckler doesn't bring defensive tactics into the mix to any significant degree.

Thanks, this is a good point that my poll didn't cover. I was asking because I don't think several editions of D&D hit the sweet spot for two weapon fighting for me, and I was wondering what that sweet spot was for others.

Being able to be viable with the classic weapons, rapier and main-gauche (parrying dagger) and the like would be a great feel, where as the common D&D grab is "the light weapon with the highest damage die".

 

[Yaztromo]

There are some aspects linked to game mechanics, but first of all it is cool.

 

[Lylandra]

In general terms of balance: on average the same amount of damage as a 2H weapon wielder. And I'd love to see the defensive "active parrying option".

In addition to that, I'd like to see a system where DW offers different kinds of combat styles / attack forms than 2H or sword&board. To have a variance only in the number of attacks and the resulting damage per attack is pretty dull in my opinion.

 

[GMMichael]

More damage, less defense. Or better yet, only improved critical odds, because what you really want to do with your sword and dagger is get within your opponent's optimal attack range and hope your dagger sticks before he backs off.

Right?

Somehow, I thought this equated to "more damage but less than a two-handed weapon."

 

[Sunseeker]

Depends, for a strength two-weapon fighting style, more risk for more reward, say, double damage but reduced chances to hit.
For a dexteriy based two-weapon fighting style, probably more attack "tricks" than increased damage.

 

[Arilyn]

I always picture dual-wielding as more the rapier-and-dagger style of Musketeers movies, rather than the two-equal-blades style of Drizzt. A main weapon primarily for attack, plus a secondary weapon mostly for parrying, but also to discourage an opponent from getting in close.

D&D doesn't do a great deal to simulate such a style, or indeed any form of swashbuckling - it makes no provision for weapons as a defensive tool. Even the UA Swashbuckler doesn't bring defensive tactics into the mix to any significant degree.

This is exactly what dual wielding should be. Waving two short swords around should be hard, not something every dex based character just does. Every rogue being a dual wielder, for example, is a big pet peeve of mine, but I can't blame anyone. I do it myself. It's just too good not to.