Hi All. It was mentioned by someone in another thread that the GWF trumps 2WF significantly. Can I please ask by just how much this can be? I would have thought that they would have been fairly balanced in the grand scheme, given the 'extra accuracy' 2WF gives via a bonus action attack.
D&D 5E GWF vs. TWF Fighting styles
An extra attacks makes you more likely to hit at least once, which can matter if you have bonus damage you can only use once (sneak attack or smites, perhaps), but it doesn't really impact how much damage you do overall, otherwise. You're also more likely to miss at least once, after all.
If you're talking about the actual Fighter/Paladin/Ranger fighting styles, TWF adds your ability modifier in damage to one attack, so that's 3-5 damage times your chance of hitting. GWF increases your average damage with every strike. With a 2d6 weapon, it raises average damage from 7 to... (3.5 +3.5 +3 +4 +5 +6)/3 = 8 1/3. So the improvement over not having the ability is 1 1/3 damage times your chance of hitting times your number of attacks.
So the TWF fighting style itself is stronger until you have four attacks, at which point GWF inches ahead. But those class features aren't the only difference between the two.
A dual-shortsword user with 16 Strength or Dexterity deals an average of 6.5 damage times (number of attacks +1) using both his Action and Bonus Action. A greatsword user with 16 Strength deals an average of 11.33... damage times number of attacks using only her Action. The dual-wielder is ahead when they only have one attack per Action (13 vs 11.33... damage), but falls behind as soon as they've got just their first Extra Attack (19.5 vs 22.66... damage, or 22.5 vs 24.66... if they improved their attack stats at level 4). And the greatsword user still has a leftover bonus action she might have a use for.
If you're using feats, the dual Wielder might take Dual Wielder to improve his damage by an average of one per attack. The greatweapon fighter takes Great Weapon Master, giving her occasional Bonus Action attacks (although obviously less commonly than the dual wielder's) and the ability to trade attack bonus for damage. Damage is nearly doubled, so unless taking the penalty halves your hit chance, that's a net gain.
Dual Wielder does give a defense benefit this doesn't account for, though.
Now, I'm not somebody who worked this out before. I did it as I went along because I thought it was an interesting question. So I might have made a mistake or overlooked something, but I think this is about right.
There are advantages to TWF outside of the raw damage, though. The ability to split damage between different targets might sometimes be useful, particularly when fighting a larger number of weaker enemies. The dual-wielder can also continue attacking when disarmed of one of his weapons or if he needs to use one of his hands for something else, albeit at a reduced rate, while the greatweapon fighter must rely on a back-up weapon--assuming she even has one--and take the time to swap it out.
The dual-wielder can also be Dexterity-based, which might improve some of his other characteristics. And as I noted, the improved ability to land at least one attack is quite useful for rogues. And hey, maybe being less likely to fail outright is appealing to you, even if you're also less likely to succeed completely.
If you're talking about the actual Fighter/Paladin/Ranger fighting styles, TWF adds your ability modifier in damage to one attack, so that's 3-5 damage times your chance of hitting. GWF increases your average damage with every strike. With a 2d6 weapon, it raises average damage from 7 to... (3.5 +3.5 +3 +4 +5 +6)/3 = 8 1/3. So the improvement over not having the ability is 1 1/3 damage times your chance of hitting times your number of attacks.
So the TWF fighting style itself is stronger until you have four attacks, at which point GWF inches ahead. But those class features aren't the only difference between the two.
A dual-shortsword user with 16 Strength or Dexterity deals an average of 6.5 damage times (number of attacks +1) using both his Action and Bonus Action. A greatsword user with 16 Strength deals an average of 11.33... damage times number of attacks using only her Action. The dual-wielder is ahead when they only have one attack per Action (13 vs 11.33... damage), but falls behind as soon as they've got just their first Extra Attack (19.5 vs 22.66... damage, or 22.5 vs 24.66... if they improved their attack stats at level 4). And the greatsword user still has a leftover bonus action she might have a use for.
If you're using feats, the dual Wielder might take Dual Wielder to improve his damage by an average of one per attack. The greatweapon fighter takes Great Weapon Master, giving her occasional Bonus Action attacks (although obviously less commonly than the dual wielder's) and the ability to trade attack bonus for damage. Damage is nearly doubled, so unless taking the penalty halves your hit chance, that's a net gain.
Dual Wielder does give a defense benefit this doesn't account for, though.
Now, I'm not somebody who worked this out before. I did it as I went along because I thought it was an interesting question. So I might have made a mistake or overlooked something, but I think this is about right.
There are advantages to TWF outside of the raw damage, though. The ability to split damage between different targets might sometimes be useful, particularly when fighting a larger number of weaker enemies. The dual-wielder can also continue attacking when disarmed of one of his weapons or if he needs to use one of his hands for something else, albeit at a reduced rate, while the greatweapon fighter must rely on a back-up weapon--assuming she even has one--and take the time to swap it out.
The dual-wielder can also be Dexterity-based, which might improve some of his other characteristics. And as I noted, the improved ability to land at least one attack is quite useful for rogues. And hey, maybe being less likely to fail outright is appealing to you, even if you're also less likely to succeed completely.
redrick
First Post
There are some older threads here on ENWorld that work out the math in a great amount of detail.
Basically, TWF style handily out-performs GWF style in DPR until 5th level, when the 2nd attack brings GWF up to parity with TWF. (Since the bonus action attack does not scale with action surge or extra attacks.) By the time fighters have 3 attacks, GWF is doing more damage, and by 4 attacks, GWF is doing a lot more damage.
There are some variables, like magic weapons, which can shift things a little bit.
The trade-off, which I believe to be a reasonable one, though I'll admit I've never played a campaign in the teens or above, is that a character focusing on TWF over GWF is focusing on Dex over Str, which is generally considered to be a more beneficial ability. The TWF fighter has better initiative, better AC out of armor, no disadvantage on stealth checks, and better stealth over all, better dexterity saves, better acrobatics (admittedly not as useful as many think — the strength-based athletics comes up way more often in games I've played in), and much better versatility at range.
Anyway, the problem is that DPR is really easy to measure, whereas the rest of what I've listed is much harder to firmly quantify.
The feats add a whole other level, as the Dual Wielder feat doesn't have the same "slightly ridiculous damage machine" mechanic provided by Great Weapon Master or Sharpshooter. (On the other hand, being able to wear light armor and have an identical AC to somebody in plate armor is nothing to scoff at.)
---EDIT---
Again, this is really only a major issue for high level fighters. Rangers, who I don't think ever get more than 2 attacks, can stay in the sweet spot of TWF, especially when spells like Hunter's Mark come into play. 3x Hunter's Mark is better than 2x. On the other hand, the Archery style is so good, especially if you have the Sharpshoot feat, which negates cover, the only thing that really keeps ranged characters in check.
Basically, TWF style handily out-performs GWF style in DPR until 5th level, when the 2nd attack brings GWF up to parity with TWF. (Since the bonus action attack does not scale with action surge or extra attacks.) By the time fighters have 3 attacks, GWF is doing more damage, and by 4 attacks, GWF is doing a lot more damage.
There are some variables, like magic weapons, which can shift things a little bit.
The trade-off, which I believe to be a reasonable one, though I'll admit I've never played a campaign in the teens or above, is that a character focusing on TWF over GWF is focusing on Dex over Str, which is generally considered to be a more beneficial ability. The TWF fighter has better initiative, better AC out of armor, no disadvantage on stealth checks, and better stealth over all, better dexterity saves, better acrobatics (admittedly not as useful as many think — the strength-based athletics comes up way more often in games I've played in), and much better versatility at range.
Anyway, the problem is that DPR is really easy to measure, whereas the rest of what I've listed is much harder to firmly quantify.
The feats add a whole other level, as the Dual Wielder feat doesn't have the same "slightly ridiculous damage machine" mechanic provided by Great Weapon Master or Sharpshooter. (On the other hand, being able to wear light armor and have an identical AC to somebody in plate armor is nothing to scoff at.)
---EDIT---
Again, this is really only a major issue for high level fighters. Rangers, who I don't think ever get more than 2 attacks, can stay in the sweet spot of TWF, especially when spells like Hunter's Mark come into play. 3x Hunter's Mark is better than 2x. On the other hand, the Archery style is so good, especially if you have the Sharpshoot feat, which negates cover, the only thing that really keeps ranged characters in check.
Last edited:
Blue
Ravenous Bugblatter Beast of Traal
I haven't run the math, but while for a fighter the extra attacks end up having the larger damage die trump the extra die + extra str/dex, is that still true of characters like the ranger with hunter's blessing where each extra attack adds an extra static amount. Same for classes that add +d8 to damage at 11th.
redrick
First Post
TWF can use strength, but GWF can't use Dex. That makes it a pretty valid argument, in my mind. The fact that dual-wielding non-finesse weapons isn't possible until you pick up a feat makes a strength-based two-weapon fighter a less likely "trap" for the unwitting new player. If you're choosing to dual-wield battleaxes, you're doing it because you think it's awesome, not because you think it's the secret to unlocking all the damage potential.
I think the TWF vs Duelist argument is a slightly more valid one, because, eventually, the Duelist can do the same thing as TWF, but for more damage. On the other hand, "eventually" is further than many people will get in the game. That's not a blanket excuse, but for people like me who tend to focus on levels 1-10, it makes the concern almost entirely irrelevant.
Xeviat
Hero
Okay, so I'm home. Here's the info I promised. My calculations are based on 3 round combats, 65% base chance to hit (starting at +5 to hit, against equal CR opponent), 2 short rests to 1 long rest, 6 combats per day. These numbers also use the Champion Fighter. Str or Dex is increased to 18 at level 4 and 20 at level 8, and I give out +1 damage at level 12, 16, and 20 (but I didn't adjust to hit, which should really affect everyone equally).
Level 1
Archery (Longbow): 105
Duelist (1d8 and shield): 115
GWFing (Greatsword): 140
TWFing (2 shortswords): 158 (bonus is half your attack)
Level 5
Archery: 287
Duelist: 306
GWFing: 372
TWFing: 314 (bonus is 105)
So Duelist and TWFing are already basically even at this point ... unfortunate. 2d8+12 (21) vs. 3d6+12 (22.5), with duelist getting better action surges ...
Level 11
Archery: 477
Duelist: 499
GWFing: 598
TWFing: 476 (bonus is 119 ... at this point, a 2nd bonus attack would be okay)
Now I'm mad ...
Level 17
Archery: 670
Duelist: 680
GWFing: 807
TWFing: 662 (bonus is 165)
Now even the archer is better ...
Level 20 (not that it matters)
Archery: 965
Duelist: 970
GWFing: 1139
TWFing: 912 (bonus is 182, a second bonus attack would be behind gwfing, but not terribly so)
It's not even funny now ...
This is even with enhanced weapons. It's not with any sort of magic on hit riders, though, which will favor TWFing.
Level 1
Archery (Longbow): 105
Duelist (1d8 and shield): 115
GWFing (Greatsword): 140
TWFing (2 shortswords): 158 (bonus is half your attack)
Level 5
Archery: 287
Duelist: 306
GWFing: 372
TWFing: 314 (bonus is 105)
So Duelist and TWFing are already basically even at this point ... unfortunate. 2d8+12 (21) vs. 3d6+12 (22.5), with duelist getting better action surges ...
Level 11
Archery: 477
Duelist: 499
GWFing: 598
TWFing: 476 (bonus is 119 ... at this point, a 2nd bonus attack would be okay)
Now I'm mad ...
Level 17
Archery: 670
Duelist: 680
GWFing: 807
TWFing: 662 (bonus is 165)
Now even the archer is better ...
Level 20 (not that it matters)
Archery: 965
Duelist: 970
GWFing: 1139
TWFing: 912 (bonus is 182, a second bonus attack would be behind gwfing, but not terribly so)
It's not even funny now ...
This is even with enhanced weapons. It's not with any sort of magic on hit riders, though, which will favor TWFing.
It seems every edition of D&D since 2nd edition has left two-weapon fighting in the dust. Seems they're still so worried about what happened in 2nd edition with the TWF, they never take the time to properly balance it from 3rd edition on. It's too bad one of the coolest fighting styles is the low man on the totem pole as far as damage and effectiveness. Wish that weren't the case.
Similar Threads
