Dual-weapon fighting is extremely lackluster

[El Mahdi]

I've been away for a few days, so I'm just catching up here.

You get two attacks, both at half damage. This just doesn't even seem worth it to me.

The only real downside is that you have to make two successful attack rolls in order to do the same amount of damage as a one-handed weapon person...

I agree with both of these statements. Statistically, you're doing less damage per round (on average) due to making two attack rolls (instead of one), with no real bonus at all (other than splitting between two targets...which at best only benefits in certain, rare situations - such as two-targets within range with low HP's...

Also, it doesn't model at all, what two-weapon fighting's real purpose was. However, we'd run into all kinds of other problems by attempting to make it 100% modeled on reality.

The purpose of dual-wielding weapons was to increase your defensive capability (much in the way a buckler would) while not sacrificing the off-hands offensive potential. It was a style that was popular and useful, though for only a limited period. It was mostly supplanted due to lighter (and therefore faster) weapons, allowing one to reduce your cross-sectional area (smaller target) while maintaining the same offensive capability. These lighter, faster weapons (small sword, epee, foil) were lighter than rapiers and espadas, and therefore quicker. However, D&D doesn't have a mechanical way in which to differentiate this. Rapiers, espadas, small swords, epees, and foils would all be Finesse Weapons in D&D with the same benefits - even though they were quite different in application and use.

And here's the big kicker about dual wielding: the training for this was almost always for use with light dueling weapons and against lightly armored or unarmored foes, and not for use with or against battlefield weapons, heavily armored opponents, and battlefield situations. To model this would require a complete reworking and rethinking of the entire combat assumptions of the game...and that's just not feasible. D&D throws civilian dueling weapons into the same pot as battlefield weapons, and makes them just as useful in any situation.

Hopefully it will be kept under control. TWF has a checkered history in D&D, especially after one particular character that inspires eye rolls every time his name his mentioned.

On this I agree.

There isn't really that much of a basis in reality for it, but it's been adopted as a D&D-ism.

See below...

The 3.X version slowed down play and could get really cheesy. Hopefully, they will finally render a version that is mechanically interesting but not preferable to two-handed weapons, sword-and-shield, or even one-handed duelist-style fighting.

On this I agree also.

Frankly the half damage thing seems like a good start.

And I'm back to not agreeing.

...TWF is a fantasy cliché with very little to do with historical realism...

If you and Ahnehnois mean that the D&D version of TWF (the game mechanics) have little to do with historical realism, I agree. If however, you're both saying that Two-Weapon Fighting has no historical precedent or basis in reality, I'd say that's an innacurate claim.

Dual-wielding (in reality) is damn hard and requires years of training. In fact, it was a non-existent style in regular warfare, and probably studied only by a few elite duelists.

Absolutely correct.

...historically (at least in the western fencing and swordfighting*) the second-hand weapon was used mostly for defense...

The spanish "vizcaina" was an offensive left hand dagger.

Although true, triqui, Li Shenron did say mostly used for defense. And that is correct.


But, as to claims that two-weapon fighting is not realistic or historic:

Joachim Meÿer - excerpts from Gründtliche Beschreibung der Kunst des Fechtens (Thorough Descriptions of the Art of Fencing) - 1570

“As regards the dagger in conjunction with the rapier, I advise the German that he accustom himself to parry with both weapons together, and meanwhile take heed whether he can harm his opponent with the weapon or the dagger, yet such that he does not bring his weapons too far from one another, to make sure he can always come to help the one with the other” (2.105v1)

There were also fechtbuchs by Joseph Swetnam (The Schoole of the Noble and Worthy Science of Defence - 1617 - illustrations below), and Camillo Agrippa (Treatise on the Science of Arms and Philosophy - 1553)...among others...that also detailed using two weapons.


There are three main ways to employ dual wielding:

• You can parry all attacks with the dagger and respond with the rapier.
• You can parry with either the sword or the dagger, depending on which the attack is made, and respond with the opposite weapon.
• You can parry with both weapons at once.

And yes, two medium sized weapons could be used simultaneously (however, those medium sized weapons were always Rapiers, espadas, or lighter).

From Camillo Agrippa's Treatise on the Science of Arms and Philosophy (1553)

And of course, we can't not mention the Japanese use of two weapons simultaneously.

The Japanes Daisho (Katana and Wakizashi combination) was used this way quite often. As well as the sue of a Katana and scabbard (with the scabbard used for defense), and even two Katana's (or uchigatana's) used simultaneously (as Miyamoto Musashi was reputed to have done in several duals).


Miyamoto Musashi

I read the dual wielding rules and one word came to mind for me.

"Boring".

I agree.

Yeah. It seems designed to keep players away from the style. Not that I mind. I'm happy if a turn allows you to roll dice once.

I mind. What's the point of designing a mechanic, if you're also going to design in elements that negates it's usefulness...? Seems like a waste of effort and text space to me...

However, I do appreciate mechanical elements that combine or limit the necessity of multiple die rolls.

Yes, I pointed at doubling your chances to inflict non-damage riders as the reason to use dueal wielding. Mowing down minions would be a good one too if you expect to fight 1d6, 3hp hit die critters forever. Once you gets past them dual wielding is a liability, damage wise.

I agree.

That's not really a downside, on average. It evens out with the fact that if you miss your first attack with both 1h and TWF, you still can do some damage with TWF. On average, it's the same.

Incorrect.

...If you've a 50% chance to hit then on average TWF does 3 (0.5*3+0.25*6), S&B does 3.25 (0.5*7.5) and 2H does 4.25 (0.5*9.5)...

Bingo!



D&D already combines or includes a lot of things that really didn't go together at all (like the aforementioned mix of civilian dueling weapons alongside battlefield weapons and armor) or didn't exist to begin with(neologisms like longswords and chain mail, or the never existed studded leather armor...) But these D&D'isms aren't likely to go away any time soon, so one may as well roll with it.

So, how about something like this: Fighter's can automatically dual-wield without needing an additional Feat. But the benefit is only the same as using a small shield (buckler): +1 to AC.

Classes that don't automatically gain the shield proficiency for small shields can dual wield for the AC bonus, but suffer a -2 or -4 to attacks.

But, in order to show specialized training in two-weapon fighting, and provide an extra bonus, but attempting to keep it inline with realistic applications as much as possible, an actual Two-Weapon Fighting Feat can provide the following benefits: +2 to Defense (AC) and +2 to Damage. However, one does not make two attack rolls, split attacks, or anything else. One attack roll providing a +2 to Damage, along with the constant +2 bonus to AC, as long as two weapons are wielded.

Mechanically, that's kind of boring also. But I can see this being the pre-requisite for some other cool two-weapon powers-esque feats...like whirlwind attack or such.

I love it when people put "period" at the end of a post, lets me know who they are...

That's the way I see it...Period!

 

[VinylTap]

I really like the idea of TWF giving you some options. Multiple enemies, one enemy or fighting defensively, as long as you keep mods out of it its not much to track. I still think an increase crit ability is better than a +2 damage mod. Keep great weapons as +dmg, and TWF as +crit. Balance and you've got two distinctive fighting styles.

 

[Chronikoce]

Honestly the more I read the more I hope they change it to static bonus on a single attack. Splits attacks just seem to have terribly limited usefulness.

As others have posted something like +x AC +x Damage when dual wielding seems perfectly reasonable.

 

[VinylTap]

At that point TWF is just a slightly smaller great weapon bonus at the benefit of a little more defense. That rule would be better served for a buckler. There's nothing wrong with wanting to be extra aggressive with two weapons.

 

[Gorgoroth]

twf

TWF should give two attacks at half damage with +1 AC, always on.

I could see rogues using the 2x chance to hit at all, (esp with advantage, you are virtually guaranteed to hit at least once, against any foe. that's 4 d20s), to apply their sneak attack damage as a very worthwhile strategy, and halflings with their damage bonus to short swords (which is wierd, as others pointed out, but anyway).

/aside: I think if halflings get +2 to short sword damage, humans should get +1 damage to all weapons. but that's unnecessary, they should just take away the bonus damage and not pigeonhole races into certain weapons. Why not dwarves with swords? do what you wanna do

Sure, I will probably take a dwarf anyway, wielding his Golden Axe (hehe, see my avatar), but that's because I love dwarves and if that's wrong, well, too bad

TWF could give advantage on the second attack, like the pictures imply -- you feint with the first, which has disadvantage, but the second gets advantage. Always on. So you still roll 4 d20s each round, in pairs. So rogues are like...easy way to generate advantage every round without too much hassle. The real damage comes from his sneak attack.

Of course, that's all moot if the sneak attack dmg is halved too, in which case TWF is teh major suckage and screw dat. I'd like to see what the higher level bonuses/penalties are like.

If the half-damage penalty goes away at higher levels, or you don't have to use finesse weapons, then sure. I can see in that case all fighters grabbing TWF feat at level 9 or whenever the new perk kicks in