Consensus about two-weapon fighting?

Reason being is

Greatsword = 1 attack at 2d6+Stat
Longsword + Shortsword = 2 attacks at 1d8+ Stat/ 1d6

TWF deals greater DPR than the Greatsword guy. 2 attacks instead of one, and combined damage of 1d8+1d6+stat.

'Light weapon required in the offhand only' might work as default, but only if you imposed disadvantage on the off hand weapon attack, unless the primary weapon is also light..
So?

A d8 longsword (the best 1h weapon damage you can get) averages 1 pt of damage more per round (2 max) over a shortsword/shortsword combo, assuming you hit both times. Caeteris paribus, A dual-wielder would get an extra point of damage in exchange for the opportunity to use his bonus action and potentially miss one of his attacks and due less dpr than if he'd had hit just once with a 2h weapon.
 

Zardnaar

Legend
View attachment 107466
*Assuming 3x Action Surges per day
That chart doesn't really do the fighter many favors.

1. It's level 11, big pick up for fighter. What does level 5 to 10 look like.

2. It's the Battlemaster, the most front loaded overall best fighter until level 15 or so.

It's a marginal increase in damage at a level a lot of games won't make it to and the Paladin is still better overall because if everything else it's does.

The one thing a fighter can crush a Paladin at us sharpshooter plus cbe combo, the extra feat is useful and paladin's don't get the archery style.

Anyway the big problem is certain feats. Just find some 3pp feat that buffs twf. It's what I did cost $1.
 
Last edited:

Flamestrike

Explorer
So?

A d8 longsword (the best 1h weapon damage you can get) averages 1 pt of damage more per round (2 max) over a shortsword/shortsword combo, assuming you hit both times. Caeteris paribus, A dual-wielder would get an extra point of damage in exchange for the opportunity to use his bonus action and potentially miss one of his attacks and due less dpr than if he'd had hit just once with a 2h weapon.
2 attacks at [1d6/ 1d6+stat] is better than 1 attack at [2d6+stat]. It's your chances of 2 coin tosses coming up at least one head instead of one; you're a better chance of dealing damage every round over the guy with a single attack, and your DPR is the same.

Buffing the main hand to 1d8 means you deal (1d8+1d6+Stat) instead of a greatswords (2d6+stat). Your DPR is higher (presuming no feat investment) AND you're a better chance of dealing damage each round.

Bonus sources of damage (Hex, Hunters mark, Smite, Sup dice, Rage etc) make the TWF even more superior.
 

Gladius Legis

Adventurer
2 attacks at [1d6/ 1d6+stat] is better than 1 attack at [2d6+stat]. It's your chances of 2 coin tosses coming up at least one head instead of one; you're a better chance of dealing damage every round over the guy with a single attack, and your DPR is the same.

Buffing the main hand to 1d8 means you deal (1d8+1d6+Stat) instead of a greatswords (2d6+stat). Your DPR is higher (presuming no feat investment) AND you're a better chance of dealing damage each round.
All that goes out the window once you get Extra Attack. Which accounts for 80% of a fighting class' level progression.

Greatsword becomes 4d6 + 2xstat. Which is more than 2d8 + 1d6 + 2xstat.

So, bumping the main hand to 1d8 wouldn't throw balance off at all, really. It'd only make dual-wielding slightly stronger (as in, 1 measly point) from Lv. 1-4, which, again, is only 20% of character progression as well as the levels that go by quickest.

Bonus sources of damage (Hex, Hunters mark, Smite, Sup dice, Rage etc) make the TWF even more superior.
Tagging an enemy with Hex or Hunter's Mark uses up the same bonus action you'd need to dual-wield in the first place. Making for at least one round in the battle you aren't getting the off-hand attack.

Rage is activated as a bonus action, again making for at least one round in the battle you aren't getting an off-hand attack.

Paladins don't get Two-Weapon Fighting Style as one of their Fighting Style options. That alone is a mitigating factor for the Lv. 5-10 range.

Superiority Dice are a finite resource that are going to get used up between short rests regardless.

The off-hand attack is not multiplied by an Action Surge because it's not part of your action. Again, advantage to the greatsword.

Conclusion: Dual-wielding is NOT superior. Not even if you bumped the main hand to 1d8.
 

Flamestrike

Explorer
All that goes out the window once you get Extra Attack. Which accounts for 80% of a fighting class' level progression.

Greatsword becomes 4d6 + 2xstat. Which is more than 2d8 + 1d6 + 2xstat.
Agreed, but by that time all classes with extra attack as a class feature (or thirsting blade) have [+ damage] riders on attacks (Smite, Rage, Sup dice, Hunters mark, Hex, Eldritch smite, Divine Favor) or like having multiple attacks to land sneak attack in the case of rogues (who dont get extra attack), which picks up the slack.

So, bumping the main hand to 1d8 wouldn't throw balance off at all, really. It'd only make dual-wielding slightly stronger (as in, 1 measly point) from Lv. 1-4, which, again, is only 20% of character progression as well as the levels that go by quickest.
It doesnt throw balance off, but it makes TWF mechanically superior to Great Weapon fighting (and that's before you factor in Hunters mark and similar riders) at least until level 5.

It gets worse when fighting style investments are added in. A 1st level TWF fighter deals 1d8+Stat and 1d6+Stat compared to a GWF guy dealing 2d6+Stat (re-roll 1 and 2).

The TWF guy deals more damage, and has the better DPR spread (dealing damage more often).

Tagging an enemy with Hex or Hunter's Mark uses up the same bonus action you'd need to dual-wield in the first place. Making for at least one round in the battle you aren't getting the off-hand attack.
Made up for in rounds 2+.

The DPR drop off for shifting Hunter Mark/ Hex (lose 1 attack that round) more than makes up for itself from the 3rd round onwards.

Remember - in 5E monsters are big bags o HP. Unless you're dealing with a Horde of Mooks, it's always better shifting Hex/ Hunters mark on the Prime target than not.

Conclusion: Dual-wielding is NOT superior. Not even if you bumped the main hand to 1d8.
Your conclusion is flawed.

In your rules, Dual Wielding is superior to every other fighting style (till level 5) by every measure, then from 5th level onwards, it's only superior in certain situations (Nova strikes spamming smites or sup dice, when a target is already tagged with Hex/ Hunters mark, when hit chance is more important than outright damage etc).

A more niche solution (and Im aware it's a feat tax) is to simply include a 'Superior TWF' feat (requires the extra attack class feature, dual weilder feat and TWF style).

Benefit:

- When you fight with two weapons, you may make an extra melee weapon attack with a weapon you hold in the off hand as art of the same bonus action.
- When you make an attack of opportunity and you wield a melee weapon in each hand, you may attack the same target once with each weapon you hold as part of the same reaction.
- You gain +1 to Strength or Dex to a max score of 20
 

Gladius Legis

Adventurer
It gets worse when fighting style investments are added in. A 1st level TWF fighter deals 1d8+Stat and 1d6+Stat compared to a GWF guy dealing 2d6+Stat (re-roll 1 and 2).
1d6 + Stat and 1d6 + Stat is already better than GWF's 2d6r1&2 + Stat from Lv. 1-4. I fail to see how 1 extra point of damage in the former case makes it that much more egregious. Again, for only Lv. 1-4, 20% of level progression, and the levels that go by quickest.

And then at Lv. 5, at STR 18:
GWF: 4d6r1&2 + 8 = 24.67
TWF (w/d8 main hand): 2d8 + 1d6 + 12 = 24.5

Lv. 5+, even with a 1d8 main hand AND the TWF Fighting Style, GWF is STILL more damaging (though just barely now).

Made up for in rounds 2+.

The DPR drop off for shifting Hunter Mark/ Hex (lose 1 attack that round) more than makes up for itself from the 3rd round onwards.
This is wrong.

Greatsword + Hunter's Mark, 3 rounds, STR 18, Extra Attack:
3*(6d6+8) = 87

1d8 main weapon + 1d6 off weapon, 3 rounds, Hunter's Mark tag round 1, dual-wielding 2 and 3, STR 18, Extra Attack:
(2d8+2d6+8) + 2*(2d8+4d6+8) = 86

Even after three rounds, the greatsword is a point ahead of the dual-wielder with a d8 main. The dual-wielder pulls ahead in Round 4, which is the last round of many combats, likely mopping up.

Your conclusion is flawed.
The math says otherwise after Lv. 5, i.e. 80% of character progression.

In your rules, Dual Wielding is superior to every other fighting style (till level 5) by every measure, then from 5th level onwards, it's only superior in certain situations (Nova strikes spamming smites or sup dice, when a target is already tagged with Hex/ Hunters mark, when hit chance is more important than outright damage etc).
Which is the case whether the main hand is a d6 or a d8 weapon. So, again, I fail to see the harm in allowing d8 mainhand weapons for dual-wielding.
 
2 attacks at [1d6/ 1d6+stat] is better than 1 attack at [2d6+stat]. It's your chances of 2 coin tosses coming up at least one head instead of one; you're a better chance of dealing damage every round over the guy with a single attack, and your DPR is the same.

Buffing the main hand to 1d8 means you deal (1d8+1d6+Stat) instead of a greatswords (2d6+stat). Your DPR is higher (presuming no feat investment) AND you're a better chance of dealing damage each round.

Bonus sources of damage (Hex, Hunters mark, Smite, Sup dice, Rage etc) make the TWF even more superior.
You also end up with rounds where you hit your primary weapon and you miss your off-hand attack and do less damage then if you hit using a greatsword. So sometimes you get a little damage when you would have got none, but sometimes you get less than you would have if only needed to hit once. That is the price you pay.

Of course, the primary function of dual wielding is to give an extra shot of delivering rider dice. I don't have a problem with that, you are sacrificing a bonus action to do so. But if you're not, rule those riders (sa, smite hex, hunters mark) don't apply to off hand attacks. You could probably safely remove the bonus action requirement after that. Now, you're just gambling potential misses against chances to crit.
 

Flamestrike

Explorer
1d6 + Stat and 1d6 + Stat is already better than GWF's 2d6r1&2 + Stat from Lv. 1-4. I fail to see how 1 extra point of damage in the former case makes it that much more egregious. Again, for only Lv. 1-4, 20% of level progression, and the levels that go by quickest.
Exactly. 2WF is already good at low (1-4) levels. Your proposed 'fix' doesnt fix this; it just makes it even better at those low levels.

And then at Lv. 5, at STR 18:
GWF: 4d6r1&2 + 8 = 24.67
TWF (w/d8 main hand): 2d8 + 1d6 + 12 = 24.5
Your 2WF gets 3 attacks per round to your GWF's 2. Meaning he deals more reliable (if slightly less) damage.

So there is a trade off elsewhere.

Greatsword + Hunter's Mark, 3 rounds, STR 18, Extra Attack:
3*(6d6+8) = 87

1d8 main weapon + 1d6 off weapon, 3 rounds, Hunter's Mark tag round 1, dual-wielding 2 and 3, STR 18, Extra Attack:
(2d8+2d6+8) + 2*(2d8+4d6+8) = 86
Hunters mark (2 attacks per round) 3 rounds = 12d6 + (Str x 6) + 6d6 damage = 87 average damage - more with GWS - roughly 95 damage.
TWF+ Hunters mark and d6 damage weapons = 8d6 + (Str x 8) + 8d6 damage = 88 damage (and you have a higher chance of dealing damage due to more attacks meaning more reliable damage, and more chances to crit.

Even with d6 weapons, with hunters mark you're at least on par at round 3, and pull further ahead each round there-after.

Which is the case whether the main hand is a d6 or a d8 weapon. So, again, I fail to see the harm in allowing d8 mainhand weapons for dual-wielding.
The harm is you're compounding the problem (2WF becomes clearly mathematically superior at levels 1-4) without fixing the real issue (at mid to high levels, and with feat support, TWF drops off).

You dont need to buff 2WF at low levels. It needs a buff from around 11th level onwards.
 

Gladius Legis

Adventurer
Hunters mark (2 attacks per round) 3 rounds = 12d6 + (Str x 6) + 6d6 damage = 87 average damage - more with GWS - roughly 95 damage.
TWF+ Hunters mark and d6 damage weapons = 8d6 + (Str x 8) + 8d6 damage = 88 damage (and you have a higher chance of dealing damage due to more attacks meaning more reliable damage, and more chances to crit.

Even with d6 weapons, with hunters mark you're at least on par at round 3, and pull further ahead each round there-after.
95 is not on par with 88, dude. You cite math that directly disproves your point and try to spin that it proves you right. That's some mental gymnastics.

The harm is you're compounding the problem (2WF becomes clearly mathematically superior at levels 1-4) without fixing the real issue (at mid to high levels, and with feat support, TWF drops off).
One. Stinking. Point. At. The. Lowest. 20%. Of. Levels.

What do you have against one stinking point at the levels that go by the quickest?

I'm not even trying to fix a mathematical balance. I just want my character to use rapier/dagger or longsword/shortsword, TWO REAL-WORLD FIGHTING STYLES, without having to take a feat (i.e. OPTIONAL RULE) for it. Which for whatever reason is making you rage hard.
 
This is wrong.

Greatsword + Hunter's Mark, 3 rounds, STR 18, Extra Attack:
3*(6d6+8) = 87

1d8 main weapon + 1d6 off weapon, 3 rounds, Hunter's Mark tag round 1, dual-wielding 2 and 3, STR 18, Extra Attack:
(2d8+2d6+8) + 2*(2d8+4d6+8) = 86

Even after three rounds, the greatsword is a point ahead of the dual-wielder with a d8 main. The dual-wielder pulls ahead in Round 4, which is the last round of many combats, likely mopping up.
Additionally he's assuming that you never killed that enemy and needed to move the hex/hunter's mark to the next enemy. If that happens then you never catch up.
 
I'm not even trying to fix a mathematical balance. I just want my character to use rapier/dagger or longsword/shortsword, TWO REAL-WORLD FIGHTING STYLES, without having to take a feat (i.e. OPTIONAL RULE) for it. Which for whatever reason is making you rage hard.
This.

To me, one point of damage is barely a consideration since 5e is designed for neither PVP nor PerfectBalance, and the worst that comes off it is that a monster dies one round sooner, if even.

In all honesty, I think the bigger problem is greatswords doing 2d6 compared to the other heavy weapons doing 1d12. I think 2d6 skews the math and makes it superior to all other nonreach weapons.
 

dnd4vr

Tactical Studies Rules - The Original Game Wizards
@FrogReaver, in your table about the 11th level Paladin/Fighter (post #171, top of page 18) how did you figure the damage from the Battle Master dice?

It looks like you are doing the 15 d10's average, which is 82.5, but what maneuver are you gaining this from. I don't play the archetype and have never seen one in action, either, so I am honestly curious. I thought maybe with Lunging attack, but if that is the case you would have to multiply the expected damage (82.5) times the chance to hit (0.65), which would reduce it to 53.625 hp of damage?

Now, I am not trying to rekindle the flames of controversy but am more interested in a civil discussion. :) One of our players was curious about the Oathbreaker Paladin as an option (our DM approved) and I noticed at 7th level with Aura of Hate a modest +2 CHA bonus per attack would put this archetype over the Fighter in damage per round. In fact, only twice would it fall behind (6th, when Fighter boosts STR to 20, and 20th, when the 4th attack kicks in).

So, what about the Battle Master's damage? And thoughts on the Oathbreaker?
 
Nearly every battlemaster manuever allows you to hit first then use the dice - just like the paladin’s divine smite. That was one of your “incorrect mechanics” I referred to regarding your post that I attempted a humorous reply to.

@FrogReaver, in your table about the 11th level Paladin/Fighter (post #171, top of page 18) how did you figure the damage from the Battle Master dice?

It looks like you are doing the 15 d10's average, which is 82.5, but what maneuver are you gaining this from. I don't play the archetype and have never seen one in action, either, so I am honestly curious. I thought maybe with Lunging attack, but if that is the case you would have to multiply the expected damage (82.5) times the chance to hit (0.65), which would reduce it to 53.625 hp of damage?

Now, I am not trying to rekindle the flames of controversy but am more interested in a civil discussion. :) One of our players was curious about the Oathbreaker Paladin as an option (our DM approved) and I noticed at 7th level with Aura of Hate a modest +2 CHA bonus per attack would put this archetype over the Fighter in damage per round. In fact, only twice would it fall behind (6th, when Fighter boosts STR to 20, and 20th, when the 4th attack kicks in).

So, what about the Battle Master's damage? And thoughts on the Oathbreaker?
 

dnd4vr

Tactical Studies Rules - The Original Game Wizards
Nearly every battlemaster manuever allows you to hit first then use the dice - just like the paladin’s divine smite. That was one of your “incorrect mechanics” I referred to regarding your post that I attempted a humorous reply to.
Really, because I have been looking them over and for the ones that add damage, such as Lunging attack, you use the dice and if you hit you add damage. Either hit or miss, the superiority dice is spent. That was why I was asking, specifically, what maneuver you are using to add this damage. None that I skimmed through add it after the "hit", only if the attack does hit (but like I said, the die is spent either way).

Nevermind, I read some of the others like Disarming do add damage in addition to the other feature.
 
Last edited:

Cap'n Kobold

Adventurer
Really, because I have been looking them over and for the ones that add damage, such as Lunging attack, you use the dice and if you hit you add damage. Either hit or miss, the superiority dice is spent. That was why I was asking, specifically, what maneuver you are using to add this damage. None that I skimmed through add it after the "hit", only if the attack does hit (but like I said, the die is spent either way).
Edit: First sentence has already been addressed in the original quoted post. Leaving in to avoid confusion - and because I don't know how to do strikethrough font on these forums.Out of what? Six maneuvers that add the superiority dice to damage, Lunging attack is the only one where you have to choose to use it before you hit.

I'm not saying that its pointless, but its really unrepresentative if you're comparing damage capabilities in the same breath as paladin smites and skews the data one way a bit. Particularly if you're not applying any method to represent the maneuver's main benefit.
(Precision attack is fairly solidly the best damage per dice for a battlemaster, but the maths is harder than simply adding the total dice average to the character's daily damage output.)
 
Last edited:

dnd4vr

Tactical Studies Rules - The Original Game Wizards
Out of what? Six maneuvers that add the superiority dice to damage, Lunging attack is the only one where you have to choose to use it before you hit.

I'm not saying that its pointless, but its really unrepresentative if you're comparing damage capabilities in the same breath as paladin smites and skews the data one way a bit. Particularly if you're not applying any method to represent the maneuver's main benefit.
(Precision attack is fairly solidly the best damage per dice for a battlemaster, but the maths is harder than simply adding the total dice average to the character's daily damage output.)
Just to reiterate, since you might not have read my posts in the thread and I want to give you the benefit of the doubt, I have NEVER seen a battle master played nor looked into the class much because, quite frankly, I vastly dislike the concept of "superiority dice" and their use. Because of this, I was not familiar with the maneuvers they have really, and only skimmed over precision attack because it was mentioned in a post. I read lunging attack by chance and saw the damage was dealt after the hit, but the superiority die was spent whether there was a hit or miss.

What I don't understand at this point, is why you quoted me, but removed the point where I wrote:

"Nevermind, I read some of the others like Disarming do add damage in addition to the other feature."

Also I asked FrogReaver why he calculated the maneuver damage and realized my oversight (unfortunately blatant as it was... I bow my head in shame :( ).

As to the rest of your post, precision attack isn't difficult to quantify in the comparison FrogReaver and I have been doing and tomorrow I can do it if you want. I have some time in the morning before work so I will probably even give the battle master another read through and see if it might be worth the hassle of the superiority dice concept.
 
Just to reiterate, since you might not have read my posts in the thread and I want to give you the benefit of the doubt, I have NEVER seen a battle master played nor looked into the class much because, quite frankly, I vastly dislike the concept of "superiority dice" and their use. Because of this, I was not familiar with the maneuvers they have really, and only skimmed over precision attack because it was mentioned in a post. I read lunging attack by chance and saw the damage was dealt after the hit, but the superiority die was spent whether there was a hit or miss.

What I don't understand at this point, is why you quoted me, but removed the point where I wrote:

"Nevermind, I read some of the others like Disarming do add damage in addition to the other feature."

Also I asked FrogReaver why he calculated the maneuver damage and realized my oversight (unfortunately blatant as it was... I bow my head in shame :( ).

As to the rest of your post, precision attack isn't difficult to quantify in the comparison FrogReaver and I have been doing and tomorrow I can do it if you want. I have some time in the morning before work so I will probably even give the battle master another read through and see if it might be worth the hassle of the superiority dice concept.
Well at least you've corrected course on 1 of the 4 blunders from that one post. Now just 3 more to go! ;)

BTW: You'd be surprised at the difficulties that arise from calculating precision attack. It's not a trivial problem. [MENTION=6966824]Esker[/MENTION] may be able to help more there.
 

Cap'n Kobold

Adventurer
My bad. I generally open threads in new windows and it can be a while before I get round to putting my thoughts in order and finish writing a post.
 

dnd4vr

Tactical Studies Rules - The Original Game Wizards
Well at least you've corrected course on 1 of the 4 blunders from that one post. Now just 3 more to go! ;)

BTW: You'd be surprised at the difficulties that arise from calculating precision attack. It's not a trivial problem. @Esker may be able to help more there.

First, LOL. ;)


While I freely admitted I wasn't familiar with battle master (even stated so in the post you reference), if you want to contest that those other points were blunders, it is time for you to back that up! :D Because while interpretations may differ, I stand by those.


As for precision attack, with a d10 at level 11 using your earlier table, you are turning 15 misses (usually) into hits. The impact from that is adding 171.5 expected damage, over double what other maneuvers that simply increase damage would do.


In a perfect world, it would be the full 172.5 points of damage, but since not all 15 dice will always result in 15 of the 21 expected misses becoming its, it suffers slightly. About 93.5% of the time, all 15 dice will add enough bonuses to make 15 misses into hits. About 4.9% of the time, one will fail; about 1.2% of the time, two will fail; roughly 0.25%, three will fail; after that, the numbers (say 0.04%) get so small they are inconsequential due to rounding. The expected difference in loss damage boost maybe 1 hp less damage than the best case (all 15 turning misses into hits).

Any one who wants to is free to check the math. :p
 

Advertisement

Top