D&D 5E GWF vs TWF: The Math

[Remathilis]

Technically you can't use TWF with a rapier...as it is not a light weapon.

Rereads...

Huh. I thought only the off- hand weapon had to be light. So no rapier + dagger in basic.

I wager there's a feat for that.

 

[Branduil]

TWF Rangers should be interesting too, I'm sure they'll be able to dual-wield scimitars and the like.

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

TWF Rangers should be interesting too, I'm sure they'll be able to dual-wield scimitars and the like.

Scimitars are light, so Drizzt is still legal. Though he does less damage now, since the scimitar has been demoted to a 1d6 weapon.

 

[TerraDave]

TWF rogue

the extra attack is a bonus action? this would make it a costlier option for rogues, I think.

 

[Abstruse]

TWF Rangers should be interesting too, I'm sure they'll be able to dual-wield scimitars and the like.

My guess is they'll get a fighting style like bonus at 3rd, similar to Fighters. TWF version will probably be that only the off-hand weapon must be light. But that's just a complete guess on my part.

 

[Stalker0]

TWF rogue

the extra attack is a bonus action? this would make it a costlier option for rogues, I think.

That is a very good point actually, and I'm glad for it. Before, rogues would always go TWF as an optimal path. Now there is a trade off there, so I'm guessing you will see a rogue mix between the styles which is perfect imo.

 

[Kobold Stew]

Rereads...

Huh. I thought only the off- hand weapon had to be light. So no rapier + dagger in basic.

I wager there's a feat for that.

I think you win that bet; there's been one throughout the play test.

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

That is a very good point actually, and I'm glad for it. Before, rogues would always go TWF as an optimal path. Now there is a trade off there, so I'm guessing you will see a rogue mix between the styles which is perfect imo.

Agree that it's a good design decision to open up more rogue alternatives. I just wish they'd defined sneak attack to work with all rogue weapons -- it would encourage more thuggish rogues to go the longsword route. As it stands, it would be foolish for a rogue to use a longsword, since you can't sneak attack with it, nor can you dual wield a second weapon that allows sneak attack.

 

[TerraDave]

That is a very good point actually, and I'm glad for it. Before, rogues would always go TWF as an optimal path. Now there is a trade off there, so I'm guessing you will see a rogue mix between the styles which is perfect imo.

I was just thinking about how you could play this...mixing it up...a hide, a disengage, an off-hand attack, in the same fight.

 

[the Jester]

Agree that it's a good design decision to open up more rogue alternatives. I just wish they'd defined sneak attack to work with all rogue weapons -- it would encourage more thuggish rogues to go the longsword route. As it stands, it would be foolish for a rogue to use a longsword, since you can't sneak attack with it, nor can you dual wield a second weapon that allows sneak attack.

I wouldn't be surprised to see a thuggish rogue subclass in the PH who can.