D&D 5E Consensus about two-weapon fighting?

[FrogReaver]

There were also a lot of times where my fighter could attack from range while closing or target the enemy spell caster more easily. Things that are practically impossible to quantify on a spreadsheet. Ultimately, I had fun with the PC so it worked. YMMV.

Well not impossible to quantify - but impossible to quantify a meaningful SINGLE value that will be meaningful for different campagins

If there's 1 turn per day that you can attack but another PC can't attack, we can quantify that impact. We can do the same for 2 turns etc. What we can't do is get a meaningful average number of rounds per day you can't attack because it's too sporadic and too campaign dependent etc. So those numbers can't be meaningfully calculated into DPR.

However, when looking at total accuracy weighted daily damage output they can at least be viewed there. You can then use that to calculate an adjusted DPR etc. It's the best way to handle such situations and not that much work on a spreadsheet. So in a way I can factor such a thing into a DPR style number - it's just you need multiple of them to show anything meaningful for different campaigns.

 

[Zardnaar]

I think it's mostly fine as you are trading damage for versatility for outright damage. The great weapon fighter will stink at ranged combat, twf Dex based can pull out a bow and not suck.

White room theory crafting dpm is hard because of things like surprise rounds.

The main problem is the -5/+10 feats. I allow some 3pp feats into the game that buffs light weapons.

It's the best for damage lvl 1-4, competitive 5-10, level 11+ fighter is where it breaks down.

Str based twf sucks.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Str based twf sucks.

As it should. An offhand dagger is just about viable if you don't want to lug a shield around with you, but fighting with two big heavy weapons is so stupid even Conan doesn't do it.

 

[FrogReaver]

White room theory crafting dpm is hard because of things like surprise rounds.

Not familiar with term dpm but assuming it's anything like DPR or damage per day - what do surprise rounds have anything to do with it?

 

[Zardnaar]

Not familiar with term dpm but assuming it's anything like DPR or damage per day - what do surprise rounds have anything to do with it?

I had a Dex based dual wielder and used stealth a lot. Surprise round means more damage in the twf column.

Basically I had a skill based fighter that was competitive with the big weapons. Later on I used a 3pp feat that I would consider a wash with the -5/+10 feats.

Also with the twf feat you can draw or put away two weapons. Carryv1 around and you can put it away and switch to a bow same round. Or draw another blade.

Versatility that adds to damage, I didn't feel penalized at all vs the -5/+10 feats.

 

[Quartz]

In your example you use a rapier and a short sword. A rapier is not a light weapon - it's finesse only.

You're right. So GWF does +1 HP / round damage over TWF at Str 18 in tier 2. At Str 20 (not unreasonable in tier 2 in a game without feats) they're even.

 

[abirdcall]

Damage comparisons should be compared to the total damage the party is inflicting rather than per individual character.

Dealing +1 damage from 20 to 21 dmg is small, and what some would consider insignificant. Dealing +1 damage from 80 to 81 is what most would consider insignificant.

+1dmg/round might not make a difference for the entire campaign.

 

[FrogReaver]

You're right. So GWF does +1 HP / round damage over TWF at Str 18 in tier 2. At Str 20 (not unreasonable in tier 2 in a game without feats) they're even.

They aren't though. You are neglecting the impact of all the other fighter features when you say that. As already shown, the total sum of action surge and precision attack on DPR greatly favors the Great Weapon user in tier 2. That's a big buff.

 

[FrogReaver]

Damage comparisons should be compared to the total damage the party is inflicting rather than per individual character.

Dealing +1 damage from 20 to 21 dmg is small, and what some would consider insignificant. Dealing +1 damage from 80 to 81 is what most would consider insignificant.

+1dmg/round might not make a difference for the entire campaign.

This is a great point and something too many forget. Your damage isn't done in a vaccum. The damage your party is inflicting matters and it makes increases of 1 or 2 dpr on an individual PC nearly meaningless in the grand schemege of things! Spot on ad_hoc

 

[FrogReaver]

I had a Dex based dual wielder and used stealth a lot. Surprise round means more damage in the twf column.

Case 1: You were engaging enemies without the rest of your party and thus deserve surprise but that's not really something we want to count in the positive category...

Case 2: The creatures in question must effectively not spot anyone in the party for you to surprise them. That's a very very rare event and one that the dex dual weapon user might make happen 2 to 4 times as often as if he were replaced by a str heavy armor user - however, 4 times of a really tiny number is still a really tiny number and will have virtually no impact.

Basically I had a skill based fighter that was competitive with the big weapons. Later on I used a 3pp feat that I would consider a wash with the -5/+10 feats.

That's something else to consider, that dex fighters typically get better skills and better initiative. Maybe their damage should be a little less than a heavy armored great weapon user?

Also with the twf feat you can draw or put away two weapons. Carryv1 around and you can put it away and switch to a bow same round. Or draw another blade.

DM in my games always ignores the drawing sheathing 2 weapons. If your DM's don't and you think TWF absolutely sucks - this goes a long way toward helping it.

Versatility that adds to damage, I didn't feel penalized at all vs the -5/+10 feats.

The ability to compentently use a bow is one of the biggest benefits of TWF over great weapon fighting. That's also a reason their damage maybe should be lower overall.