2 weapons vs. 2 handed weapon vs. weapon and shield

[Sadrik]

So which one is better? We really only have two melee characters rogues and fighters so far but which is better at each strategy? And why?

 

[thewok]

Right now, two-weapon fighting and two-handers are roughly equivalent damage, but DR works twice as well against dual wielders. Depending on the actual numbers, two-weapon fighting suffers from rounding taking away some damage, as well, possibly a full point per round. It seems to me that two-handers are just better all around for damage. The one advantage two-weapons has over two-handers is the extra chance to hit per round.

I've always viewed sword and board as a defensive setup, trading possible damage for more defenses. Unless, of course, you can find a d12 one-hander somewhere.

As for what's better for which class, I can only go by what I would do. For a fighter focused on damage, I'd use a two-hander. For a rogue, I'd use a single weapon since sneak attack is once per round, and a second attack wouldn't get that damage bonus.

 

[Ultimatecalibur]

Depending on how your DM interprets the two-weapon fighting rules effects on Deadly Strike and Sneak Attack two-weapon fighting can deal more or less average damage per round than using a two-handed weapon.

The following formula use a 5th level Fighter with 17 Str(+3) attacking a target with an AC of 17 using Deadly Strike for full damage.

Two-handed weapon(Greatsword)
.5(6.5+3+9)=9.25

Two Weapon Fighting(2xRapier/Scimitar/Shortsword and DS and SA are halved)
0.5((3.5+3+9)/2)+.25((7+6+9)/2)=6.625

Two Weapon Fighting(2xRapier/Scimitar/Shortsword and DS and SA are not halved)
0.5*((3.5+3)/2+9)+.25*((7+6)/2+9)=10

 

[slobo777]

Depending on how your DM interprets the two-weapon fighting rules effects on Deadly Strike and Sneak Attack two-weapon fighting can deal more or less average damage per round than using a two-handed weapon.

The following formula use a 5th level Fighter with 17 Str(+3) attacking a target with an AC of 17 using Deadly Strike for full damage.

Two-handed weapon(Greatsword)
.5(6.5+3+9)=9.25

Two Weapon Fighting(2xRapier/Scimitar/Shortsword and DS and SA are halved)
0.5((3.5+3+9)/2)+.25((7+6+9)/2)=6.625

Two Weapon Fighting(2xRapier/Scimitar/Shortsword and DS and SA are not halved)
0.5*((3.5+3)/2+9)+.25*((7+6)/2+9)=10

Based on the text in the playtest material: "All the damage of each of these attacks is halved"

The first word is "all", and it's "of these attacks", so you'd have to mentally allocate the DS and SA damage to not be part of the attack to arrive at adding them on without halving them. Which seems a bit willful and convoluted . . .

However, I expect the wording and final version of dual wielding could well change.

I'd much prefer to avoid 3.5 (and especially 4E's) assumption that we all want to be lawyers and argue endlessly about what an "attack" really is in canonical form within the game. Please WotC, in the more refined versions of the text, clarify statements like "all damage is halved" with some examples including combinations with other abilities. I want to play D&D, and I want the designers to spend a little more time spelling out what they meant so I don't need to.

Edit: DPR doesn't capture important considerations such as the spread of likely damage. The two-weapon attacker has a wider spread of outcomes where they make at least one hit, doing a little damage a lot more often than the two-handed user. This makes no difference when fighting creatures with large amounts of hit points. In the playtest however, a lot of creatures will end up on the edge of being taken down within 1 or 2 hits. That makes amount of damage done, especially at low levels, less of a concern than simply hitting. However, two weapon fighting, as written, will scale to high levels badly unless it is given further boosts to offset a lower DPR.

 

[Scipio202]

At this point there seem to be only two major benefits of two-weapon fighting:
1) if you're fighting lots of very low hp monsters
2) if you have non-damaging on-hit effects.

There aren't a lot of examples of (2) right now, the major one is that a fighter with two CS dice could knock prone or knock back two different monsters in one round with 2WF. If more status effects are introduced 2WF will start to look better.

 

[Salamandyr]

Currently two handed fighting does the most damage, and two weapon and weapon and shield do about the same amount of average damage, with the maximum damage of the two weapon fighter being less, and making up for it because of higher accuracy.

The reason for that is, the two weapon fighter is restricted to less damaging weapons. So the two handed fighter rolls d12's, the weapon and shield fighter rolls d8's, and the 2 weapon fighter rolls d6's twice and divides the results by 2 (sucks when he rolls an odd number).

And it's not very clear what happens to extra dice, like from expertise or sneak attack, when they're applied by a two weapon fighter.

Defense-wise, it's about what you'd expect. The two weapon fighter is behind the weapon and shield fighter, and the two weapon fighter lags until 3rd level when he matches the weapon and shield fighter. If we assume magic shields exist, then the two weapon fighter continues to lag.

Lesson for D&D Next...don't use two weapons.

 

[slobo777]

At this point there seem to be only two major benefits of two-weapon fighting:
1) if you're fighting lots of very low hp monsters
2) if you have non-damaging on-hit effects.

There aren't a lot of examples of (2) right now, the major one is that a fighter with two CS dice could knock prone or knock back two different monsters in one round with 2WF. If more status effects are introduced 2WF will start to look better.

Point (1) can be extended a little - it's what I'd call an "edge effect". Basically if a large enough percentage of the time, enemies are on low (in this context from 1 to 4) hit points, then how hard you hit is less relevent, and how often is more so. That can happen in more situations than the creatures starting at 1-4 hp, although of course that's the most obvious point where current two-weapon fighting is better.

This also means that a two character team, with one specialisting in hitting single targets hard, the other in hitting multiple targets less hard, is a better team-level optimisation than two simpler heavy-hitters. Edit: Although this might not be true with the current numbers - I'd need to check.

 

[MarkB]

At this point there seem to be only two major benefits of two-weapon fighting:
1) if you're fighting lots of very low hp monsters
2) if you have non-damaging on-hit effects.

There aren't a lot of examples of (2) right now, the major one is that a fighter with two CS dice could knock prone or knock back two different monsters in one round with 2WF.

A Fighter with one CS die can also make both attacks against one monster to significantly improve his odds of knocking it prone.

 

[Derren]

Imo the fighting styles should not be balanced around doing equal damage but around the better fighting style requiring more feats to become effective.

No investment -> sword and shield is best
slight investment -> Two handed weapons do more damage with a little loss of AC compared to shield.
big investment -> two weapons should do more damage than two handed weapons without additional penalties.

 

[slobo777]

Imo the fighting styles should not be balanced around doing equal damage but around the better fighting style requiring more feats to become effective.

No investment -> sword and shield is best
slight investment -> Two handed weapons do more damage with a little loss of AC compared to shield.
big investment -> two weapons should do more damage than two handed weapons without additional penalties.

That logic does of course depend on what alternative feat options there are for the sword-and-shield and 2-hander fighters. Because once they've met your "no investment" and "slight investment" levels, what are they going to do? Are you suggesting those builds should have no access to anything that improves their damage?

I'd rather see mechanical differences crop up that make the styles feel different, and not focus too much on damage. I think that a shield user should have best defense, and that 2-handers and dual wielders should get something different to each other that makes them better offensively.

Rolling twice to hit is not my favourite mechanic for dual wielding (it's far too literal, and IMO ignores the alleged abstractions in a D&D attack roll), but it does have the advantage as a simple approach that reminds you that the character has two weapons.

What would I do? Give 2-handed attackers + a little damage (just built into the weapon stats as it is now), and dual wielders the choice of fighting offensively (+1 to hit) or defensively (+1 to AC) on their turn. Feat chains could improve one or other (or both) of these options. Note the +1 to AC is not as good as a sword+shield, because there is a compromise on damage to dual wield.