D&D 5E How many attacks should a two weapon fighter get?

[Lord Vangarel]

Plently. Its totally suboptimal compared to the other fighting styles.

Thanks for the clarifications Flamestrike. You say it's suboptimal, could you explain why you think this?

 

[houser2112]

Everyone here has answered as if the question was "How many attacks does a two-weapon fighter get?". I will now answer the question "How many attacks should a two-weapon fighter get?":
As many as he normally gets when taking the Attack action, and then that same number of additional attacks when using his bonus action. Paraphrasing Flamestrike, TWF is lame. This would make it less lame. Using a bonus action to get a single attack is awesome at low levels, when you have nothing better to do with your bonus action. At higher levels, when you do, it sucks.

 

[Zaran]

Thanks for the clarifications Flamestrike. You say it's suboptimal, could you explain why you think this?

It's because there are other builds that will have better AC or better damage output. I don't agree that it's suboptimal. Just different.

 

[Lord Vangarel]

Using a bonus action to get a single attack is awesome at low levels, when you have nothing better to do with your bonus action. At higher levels, when you do, it sucks.

So what could a fighter do with it at higher levels?

 

[Sunseeker]

Everyone here has answered as if the question was "How many attacks does a two-weapon fighter get?". I will now answer the question "How many attacks should a two-weapon fighter get?":
As many as he normally gets when taking the Attack action, and then that same number of additional attacks when using his bonus action. Paraphrasing Flamestrike, TWF is lame. This would make it less lame. Using a bonus action to get a single attack is awesome at low levels, when you have nothing better to do with your bonus action. At higher levels, when you do, it sucks.

True, the limitations on TWF make the second attack really awesome at low levels, but because they don't scale only getting one extra attack ever when there are so many other things you can use a bonus action for a higher levels is pretty limited.

I still think that doubling the number of attacks is too much though, so perhaps a 1/2 progression. So at max level you would have 4 extra attacks and 2 extra off-hand attacks.

 

[Cernor]

I still think that doubling the number of attacks is too much though, so perhaps a 1/2 progression. So at max level you would have 4 extra attacks and 2 extra off-hand attacks.

The problem with that is that the 4th attack is the capstone of the 20th-level fighter, so giving half as many bonus action attacks wouldn't help TWF barbarians or rangers (or a fighter with a 1-level dip into anything else)... Or if it's rounded up, then fighters would get their second off-hand attack at 11, while everyone else is still on their own.

 

[ExploderWizard]

Using a bonus action to get a single attack is awesome at low levels, when you have nothing better to do with your bonus action. At higher levels, when you do, it sucks.

The fighting styles all have their benefits and drawbacks. One could claim that any of them were lame at high levels with just as much validity. Dueling style? Oh great I get +2 to damage vs monsters with hundreds of Hit points whoop dee do!

Fighting styles are about realizing character concepts not optimization.

 

[the Jester]

I thought action surge granted a full action as in two weapons = two attacks?

When you're fighting with two weapons, the off-hand attack is a bonus action. So a 20th level fighter, who has four attacks when he uses the Attack action, can:

1. Attack action (four attacks, on-hand weapon);
2. Bonus action attack with off-hand weapon (one attack only);
3. Action surge! (four more attacks via the extra Attack action provided).


So, nine attacks.

 

[CapnZapp]

You could probably add a second off-hand attack at level 11 or so (if we leave the subject of how the RAW works and move onto how TWF could be made competetive at higher levels).

Only issue is how to actually implement this in a way that jives with the rest of the rules. If you don't feel a need to be very formal, simply say "any character gets to make TWO attacks when using a off-hand weapon at level 11".

More specifically, change the Two-Weapon Fighting section on page 195 of the PHB into:

Two-Weapon Fighting
When you take the Attack action and attack with a light
melee weapon that you’re holding in one hand, you can
use a bonus action to attack with a different light melee
weapon that you’re holding in the other hand. At level
11, you gain two attacks instead of one. You don’t
add your ability modifier to the damage of the bonus
attack, unless that modifier is negative.

Some players will probably restrict this to happen only when you reach class level 11 (as opposed to character level 11).

Some players will probably restrict it to the martial classes only (the ones getting an extra attack at level five), or even to the fighter only.

An option is to not put this in the main rules, but to add it to the feat instead. (Adding a fourth bullet point to the Dual Wielder feat, that is, saying you get two attacks instead of one when using your bonus action to attack with your off-hand weapon once you reach level 11)

This is probably not strict enough to satisfy everyone. Shouldn't the monk benefit from this? Should the rogue really get an extra shot at her sneak damage using this?

 

[Sunseeker]

The problem with that is that the 4th attack is the capstone of the 20th-level fighter, so giving half as many bonus action attacks wouldn't help TWF barbarians or rangers (or a fighter with a 1-level dip into anything else)... Or if it's rounded up, then fighters would get their second off-hand attack at 11, while everyone else is still on their own.

I don't really have a problem with that, honestly. Want to be the best at two-weapon fighting? Roll a fighter. Barbarians and Rangers get other tricks.