Does Dual-Wielding = Double Damage?

[GMMichael]

It came up again: a PC with two weapons wants to do two-times the damage.

This time, I didn't think about the rules-answer, I wondered about the real life answer. Is someone twice as likely to die when getting jumped by a thug with two knives? Twice as likely to get cut? What if the victim is wearing armor? What if the thug is a swordsman with two swords? Don't you lose momentum when your next attack is from the opposite side of your body? What about reach?

How are we feeling about this lately?

 

[Deset Gled]

This time, I didn't think about the rules-answer, I wondered about the real life answer.

In real life? I don't think there's much serious justification for increased damage. In any form of real fighting style I can think of, the main benefit of the second weapon is defense. In fencing, it's a shield. In eastern martial arts, it's done with weapons like tonfa or sai where the weapon can be used to block attacks. Even with what D&D would consider "double weapons" like the staff, the larger size is used to shield you. Having weapons in two hands does give you the option to attack from either side, which can have tactical advantages. But speed is more due to the base weapon itself, not if you're carrying one or two.

Two weapon fighting sure is cinematically cool, though. And from a gamist standpoint it gives the options of many low damage attacks instead of one big one.

 

[Yora]

Yeah, I'm with that. You can't really control two weapon points at the same time, and pretty much every fighting stance I can think of has one shoulder towards the enemy and the other away from him.
The only way that seems plausible to attack with both hands in rapid, alternating succession is boxing when you're already in each other's face.

 

[Haiku Elvis]

As above I was going to reference boxing as boxers are duel welding all the time. If there was a way to effectively attack with both at once someone would have figured it out and we would see it.
Using one weapon to set up the other in combinations is clearly a thing so you aren't expecting both to hit more like if they dodge the first it puts them in position where the second attack is more likely to hit. And also as mentioned above using one weapon as defence was a common thing and so there are clearly perks but double damage seems wrong.

How about if the first attack misses they get a second with a to hit bonus (with second weapon damage) but if the first hits the second attack is left as a reaction/AC bonus to help defend?

 

[Tonguez]

I’ve seen dual weilded weapons irl where both hit but in all cases one hit is far weaker than the other (which is kinda modelled by the rules). No way is it double damage though.
nonetheless in DnD Id be happy for fighters to get both hits in

 

[GMMichael]

In any form of real fighting style I can think of, the main benefit of the second weapon is defense. In fencing, it's a shield. In eastern martial arts, it's done with weapons like tonfa or sai where the weapon can be used to block attacks. Even with what D&D would consider "double weapons" like the staff, the larger size is used to shield you.

This is my earlier conclusion - the second weapon aids in defense. But maybe these guys know something I don't:

Having weapons in two hands does give you the option to attack from either side, which can have tactical advantages. But speed is more due to the base weapon itself, not if you're carrying one or two.

Agreed that it's about options. There's easy-ish stuff like, "do I use this dagger to parry, or throw it as a preemptive strike?" But a more detailed game, maybe GURPS, might give different weapons advantages against opponents in different armor, or against opponents at slightly different ranges.

Two weapon fighting sure is cinematically cool, though. And from a gamist standpoint it gives the options of many low damage attacks instead of one big one.

This is one thing I was wondering about. Wouldn't using two weapons effectively lower each one's damage?

Yeah, I'm with that. You can't really control two weapon points at the same time, and pretty much every fighting stance I can think of has one shoulder towards the enemy and the other away from him.
The only way that seems plausible to attack with both hands in rapid, alternating succession is boxing when you're already in each other's face.

Dual-wielding makes more sense to me in armor-less situations, like boxing. If any old slash is dangerous, why not make a lot of them?

 

[James Gasik]

There are a few double strike techniques in martial arts, but the thing you really need to consider with dual wielding is that doing that has a major impact on defense. Unlike in a video game, you really don't want to have a large profile in combat, which is exactly what trying to hit one guy with two weapons is generally doing. I've seen some fancy acrobatics done where a guy whirls around to strike with one sword right after the other, but while that looks cool, it seems of fairly dubious value.

I personally like how Legend of the Five Rings handles it; the Mirumoto school (not unlike the real life Hyoho Niten Ichi Ryu) does teach you to use both the Katana (long sword) and Wakizashi (short sword), but the primary benefit is defensive, giving you a second way to defend yourself.

Then it moves into making your opponent unsure of which weapon you're going to strike with (analogous to granting advantage to your attack), and only masters gain a second attack.

Spoiler: As an aside

It's interesting the ups and downs D&D has had with dual wielding; in 2e, you had serious attack penalties, but very quickly warriors found ways to negate them, and dual wielding became godly if you had any kind of damage bonus (such as high Strength). 3e kept the accuracy hit, made it very hard to get rid of it, and halved your Strength bonus with the off hand weapon, keeping them largely worse than using a two handed weapon. 4e required specific attack powers to do it, and the most common of these (Twin Strike) removed any stat mods to damage.

And now we have 5e, which requires a bonus action, takes away the stat buff to your off hand weapon without a specialized Fighting Style, and prevents you from using weapons of equal size without a Feat; this stops being efficient by level 5.

Someone saying that two swords should do twice the damage reminds me of Lloyd from Tales of Symphonia: "If one sword has a power of 100, then two swords have a power of 200!".

 

[Dausuul]

I’ve seen dual weilded weapons irl where both hit but in all cases one hit is far weaker than the other (which is kinda modelled by the rules).

This makes a lot of sense when you think about it. A slash or thrust using only the arm muscles is extremely weak; a fighter learns to deliver blows with the strength of their whole body -- driving off the legs and pivoting the torso. And you can't pivot left and right simultaneously*.

The second weapon gives you the option to strike on either side, which could let you exploit more openings; and if your weapons are "short and long," which is the most common form of dual wielding, you can fight effectively at different ranges. But you're still not usually going to be striking with both weapons at once. That's why you typically use the off hand for defense.

The only way "double weapons equals double damage" makes sense is if you have a weapon whose capacity to inflict damage is unaffected by the force of the blow... and if you have the coordination to manage two at full accuracy. Which leads to the conclusion that all Jedi should fight with dual lightsabers. But if you're fighting with old-fashioned steel, not so much.

*Of course, this raises the question, "But what if I want to bring the strength of both arms into play as well?" That's what two-handed weapons are for.

 

[SpringRoll]

I do fencing and Renaissance fencing, following old italian swordplay style formulated by Achille Marozzo that, guess what, is doubled.
The facts are:

• Actual fighting isn't a fair exchange of hits. If my "entrata" (attack intent) is good enough, you don't do any "risposta" (attack on your round). The goal is to lock you in defence and get increasing advantage until I touch. It's unfair. That's mean you cannot exactly replicate it by a d20 system without making players mumble.
• The "seconda mano" (secondary weapon) isn't made just to parry. Many of maneuvers are made to hit with the "prima mano" (main weapon), get parried or move the opponent where you want, damage with seconda mano. So, the second weapon is made to hit. But any combination is legit and having a varied set of maneuvers is what make the style efficient.
• Once you touch, you stop. Piercing something with both blades mean you're stretched without any defence left. You dunno if the opponent retaliate or there are other duelists near.

It's quite impossible to replicate the thing with a fair engine that allow for HP, doesn't consider pain, stretch, body physics, and give scarce weight to fighting proficiency.
So, to me, giving another attack with a penalty (an heavy one hopefully) is a correct broad abstraction. It's just harder to parry twice in a row = more chances to deal a blow.

Probably what your player is thinking is the hero swinging his weapons at the same time. So two axes = two axes swinging each attack. You can kill his dreams by telling him to wield two pens and show you how he'll chop a tree this way (he can't).

But a more detailed game, maybe GURPS, might give different weapons advantages against opponents in different armor, or against opponents at slightly different ranges.

GURPS do consider my points, you have a -4 penalty after the defence action. I'll attack, you parry, I'll attack again, you parry at -4. If I touch, the damage is again a penalty to your next action, leading to lock you in defence and in a death spiral that's exactly how you win a fight.
De facto, the most skilled duelist is the horse to bet to. Next to the stronger one. The "lucky one" doesn't survive for long.

Dual-wielding makes more sense to me in armor-less situations, like boxing. If any old slash is dangerous, why not make a lot of them?

My style use armor. Helmet and light padded armor, that was the renaissance swordplayer setup on fields. We practice with fencing masks and football protections.
You get the point: IRL, you want to make a lot of slash, but the moment you do a bad slash, you get pierced and you die. A martial style teach you how to deal the larger number of slashes without losing composture. Is the same as boxing, it's not a rumble with a flurry of fists. But the moment an exchange begin, a lot of punches are delivered in short time. Each punch try to connect but doesn't leave you totally offguard. This is maxed out in oriental martial arts, where each attack maneuver contain a defence stance too.
IRL, you can do a flurry of attacks, but the moment you face a more skilled opponent, he laugh at you: style is about how to kill the "flurry attacks" guy.

 

[Corinnguard]

I do fencing and Renaissance fencing, following old italian swordplay style formulated by Achille Marozzo that, guess what, is doubled.

I take it that this style pits you against other dual-wielders. Do you think you would have a tactical advantage against someone who was wielding a single weapon against you? You have been trained to wield and fight with two blades, and you know what maneuvers and stances to use while dual-wielding. But I can imagine that if you went up against an opponent with a single blade and who never fought a dual-wielder before, you would stand a better chance at winning than them.

I wonder how common are dual-wielders are in RL and in a fantasy setting such as D&D.

 

[Umbran]

It came up again: a PC with two weapons wants to do two-times the damage.

The iconic 5e version of this is the two-weapon rogue, and no, they don't want to hit twice to do double damage. Rogues do most of their damage via Sneak Attack. They want more chances to land the one Sneak Attack damage a round they can produce.

This time, I didn't think about the rules-answer, I wondered about the real life answer.

In real life, a second weapon isn't about making a second attack. It is more about being able to parry and feint. D&D doesn't (imho) suitably model parrying with two-weapon fighting, but the effect of feinting is there, in that getting two attacks makes you more likely to land at least one, which is what feinting is about.

What if the victim is wearing armor? What if the thug is a swordsman with two swords? Don't you lose momentum when your next attack is from the opposite side of your body? What about reach?

Momentum is important for attacks relying on Strength. Two-weapon fighting is more often a Dex-based approach, which is more about precision. D&D doesn't get into small differences in reach, so that's not really material.

How are we feeling about this lately?

I'm feeling the idea that using two weapons is wanting to do twice the damage is not really accurate. And, to within the level of realism D&D normally provides, it is fine.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

I wonder how common are dual-wielders are in RL and in a fantasy setting such as D&D.

I think that one of the things that make dual-wielding less common IRL is that it takes a lot more practice to get any good at (that and the natural fact that not everyone will get truly good at anything no matter how much they practice). Not only are people generally lazy, but their time is just better spent learning to do things that they will get good at quickly.

This is also why crossbows are "better" than bows (they are not, but they are much easier to use) and why the gun ever replaced archery. (Guns didn't start out very accurate, and they were expensive to make and use, but you could "suck" skills-wise and still kill someone).

Dual-wielding is just difficult to do well. D&D doesn't model how much work it is to learn anything. Most other games don't either, and even if they do, it's not consistent with the IRL fact that not everyone is even close to equal when it comes to picking up skills. Aptitude is a thing.

 

[Umbran]

I wonder how common are dual-wielders are in RL and in a fantasy setting such as D&D.

In real life? We use guns these days. We have very few bands of roaming adventurers expecting to get into melee weapon combat.

And we don't have an idea of how common it is "in a fantasy setting" in general. We may see it as a common thing among adventuring PCs, but the PCs are not representative of the setting as a whole. And our real world does not have an analog to these people.

Historically, two-weapon fighting becomes a common study in dueling cultures. The techniques are commonly seen in historic fencing manuals - double-sword, sword and dagger, sword and cape, for example.

 

[Corinnguard]

I think that one of the things that make dual-wielding less common IRL is that it takes a lot more practice to get any good at (that and the natural fact that not everyone will get truly good at anything no matter how much they practice). Not only are people generally lazy, but their time is just better spent learning to do things that they will get good at quickly.

This is also why crossbows are "better" than bows (they are not, but they are much easier to use) and why the gun ever replaced archery. (Guns didn't start out very accurate, and they were expensive to make and use, but you could "suck" skills-wise and still kill someone).

Dual-wielding is just difficult to do well. D&D doesn't model how much work it is to learn anything. Most other games don't either, and even if they do, it's not consistent with the IRL fact that not everyone is even close to equal when it comes to picking up skills. Aptitude is a thing.

I can imagine dual-wielding would also less common in any D&D setting for the same exact reasons you mentioned. It takes a lot of practice to wield two weapons, and not everyone is up to the task of wanting to learn that fighting style. It's easier to wield just one weapon in your dominant hand.

Since it is less common in RL and in D&D, a melee combatant with a single weapon might not know how to defend themselves very well against a dual-wielder. A slight plus, but nothing more.

I have to agree with you on how D&D hasn't done a very good job on modeling dual-wielding. Especially with the 5e Fighter, whose Extra Attacks become very lop-sided for anyone using the Two-Weapon Fighting Style. I like the direction One D&D is taking this fighting style.

Now if only D&D will bring back Double Weapons like the the two-bladed sword (aka swordstaff).

 

[FitzTheRuke]

Now if only D&D will bring back Double Weapons like the the two-bladed sword (aka swordstaff).

Gotta disagree with you there (generally when it comes to D&D double-weapons). The double-axe was the dumbest thing I've ever seen. That said, I don't mind the idea of some weapons that are used two-handed but work like dual-wielding: like the kusarigama.

I've trained with a naginata and many maneuvers involved the "other end". Certainly the use of the quarterstaff is better modeled as a two-handed double-weapon than it is as a one-handed weapon as 5e does. Or at least all staff-fighting that I have done would be.

Speaking of which, in my experience (25 years of Japanese martial arts, some better than others) - I'd much rather have a single weapon that I use in two hands (even if that weapon can be used to attack with either end) than a weapon in each hand.

(Though I enjoy using two 'wakizashi', but like everyone here has described - it's defensive and opportunity-based.)

 

[Corinnguard]

Gotta disagree with you there (generally when it comes to D&D double-weapons). The double-axe was the dumbest thing I've ever seen. That said, I don't mind the idea of some weapons that are used two-handed but work like dual-wielding like the kusarigama. I've trained with a naginata and many maneuvers involved the "other end". Certainly the use of the quarterstaff is better modeled as a two-handed double-weapon than it is as a one-handed weapon as 5e does. Or at least all staff-fighting that I have done would be.

Speaking of which, in my experience (25 years of japanese martial arts, some better than others) - I'd much rather have a single weapon that I use in two hands than a weapon in each hand, even if that weapon can be used to attack with either end.

(Though I enjoy using two 'wakizashi', but like everyone here has described - it's defensive and opportunity-based.)

It's cool. I developed an interest in Double Weapons after seeing Darth Maul in action in Star Wars: The Phantom Menace.

So does the Polearm Master feat in 5e make the Quarterstaff into a double weapon?

 

[James Gasik]

It's cool. I developed an interest in Double Weapons after seeing Darth Maul in action in Star Wars: The Phantom Menace.

So does the Polearm Master feat in 5e make the Quarterstaff into a double weapon?

Presumably that's the idea, but the oddness of the Quarterstaff in 5e lead to an interesting infamous RAW situation that WotC never really addressed- the fact that Polearm Master never specifies how you have to wield the staff to get the benefits, and staves can be used as clubs in one hand.

 

[Bluenose]

What's a weapon? It's something that you can strike, deflect or block with rather than using your body. You can hit people with a shield. You can hit them with different parts of a weapon, you can even engage them with your body while you hold a weapon. You can deflect a strike with your sword instead of your shield.
But that's not the same as doing double damage because a lot of the time you're striking with one of those weapons while defending with the other. Actually trying to attack with both weapons at the same time simply because the balance you need is different depending on which hand you attack with. You won't be able to attack twice as often as before just because you're holding two weapons, although you will have an advantage in that attacks can come from either hand and it'll be harder to defend that. Depending on how detailed you want to get in modelling weapons this might matter.

 

[James Gasik]

What's a weapon? It's something that you can strike, deflect or block with rather than using your body. You can hit people with a shield. You can hit them with different parts of a weapon, you can even engage them with your body while you hold a weapon. You can deflect a strike with your sword instead of your shield.
But that's not the same as doing double damage because a lot of the time you're striking with one of those weapons while defending with the other. Actually trying to attack with both weapons at the same time simply because the balance you need is different depending on which hand you attack with. You won't be able to attack twice as often as before just because you're holding two weapons, although you will have an advantage in that attacks can come from either hand and it'll be harder to defend that. Depending on how detailed you want to get in modelling weapons this might matter.

Well you can strike with a shield in real life. In 5e, not very well.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

You can hit people with a shield.

That's one of the things I always find funny/annoying when it comes to Shields in D&D. IF the rules ever let you strike with a shield, (and 5e doesn't have this, AFAIR), then they always make you take a feat (specialty training) to do it.

IRL, if you can't strike with a shield, you really, really don't know what you're doing. You are not even close to "proficient" with a shield.