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

[pming]

Hiya!

Thanks Merric that clears it up. We were having a discussion and he said at high levels he would attack 16 times. I was like WHAT!!!!

One rule of thumb that I use with all my games...especially D&D ones... if the interpretation of a rule seems too good to be true, it probably is.

"I can attack 16 times in a around at level 20?!?!??!!11oneone!" definitely falls into the "too good to be true" side of the fence.

Also, I'd like to point out that nobody gets to "use a bonus action" every round. It's not something everyone just "gets". Its a specific action that someone may get if something in the game gives it to them. You can only have one bonus action in a round...so if something lets you use your bonus action, and then something comes up right after that would have let you use your bonus action, you are SOL because you've already used your single bonus action that round. A player doesn't get to decide to use a bonus action to do something.

I figured I'd put that out there because I see a lot of folks thinking it's something everyone can use every round, and it doesn't work that way.

^_^

Paul L. Ming

 

[redrick]

A few thoughts about TWF and sub-optimal.

First of all, many characters will never see play in the high teens, at which point GWF completely eclipses TWF in terms of damage output. If I remember correctly, GWF barely edges out TWF from 5th until whenever the 3rd attack comes in.

But the other thing to remember is that a two-weapon fighter is a fighter who gets to focus on Dex, which is a much more versatile ability than Strength. Your two-weapon fighter won't be doing as much damage as a high level great-sword fighter, because 4 attacks with a short-sword aren't as effective as 3 attacks with a great-sword (reroll low damage dice), but they'll get better initiative rolls, better dex saves, better stealth rolls, the ability to hack it in medium or light armor if stealth is at a premium, plus a little more survivability for the Attacked-While-Bathing scene that I'm always trying to run. Whether or not all those options are worth it to you is dependent on how you see your character, but it's a reminder that declarations of something being "optimal" usually involve focusing on one subset of the game. In this case, damage per round.

The dominance of great weapon fighting in terms of damage output is a nod to characters who choose to go full beefcake and muscle-bound. They give up that super valuable dexterity, and in exchange for that, they are the undisputed champions of splitting things in two with a great-sword.

 

[PnPgamer]

to answer the topic:
Enough to outdamage everyone else outrageously! (which is by current RAW very, very, very disappointing)

 

[zago]

I disagree with the idea that TWF should be able to do similar or more damage then great weapon fighting. However, TWF doesn't currently have meaningful role (and Sword and Board for that matter), imo. I think each fighting style should present a roughly equal benefit/niche. Great Weapon's niche SHOULD be damage, but Two-weapon could be other things like extra OA (or two attacks on OA) or Enhanced Mobility, or even increased accuracy (although this is damage also, really). Sword and board isn't good enough to counter the benefits of great weapon, but I considered (in my game) offering a feat that would allow the use of reaction to increase ones AC by their proficiency bonus (when wielding a shield).

 

[Dausuul]

One of my players is a two weapon fighter so at 1st level attacks twice on his attack option. He's taken the duel weapon fighting style so adds his ability bonus to his second attack as well.

My question is action surge grants a bonus attack option so that's four attacks? Extra attack is a full extra attack option so that's another two attacks? I think he can get three extra attacks by high level so that would be ten attacks.

Is that right? Want to make sure my understanding is correct.

Not exactly. The way two-weapon fighting works is, when you take the Attack action, you get to make an off-hand attack as a bonus action. You can only take one bonus action per round. So, while Action Surge and Extra Attack can give you lots of attacks with your main hand, you only ever get one off-hand attack per round, no matter what.

1st-level character: One main hand attack, one off-hand.
Using Action Surge: Two main hand attacks, one off-hand.
5th-level character: Two main hand attacks, one off-hand.
5th-level using Action Surge: Four main hand attacks, one off-hand.
11th-level fighter: Three main hand attacks, one off-hand.
11th-level using Action Surge: Six main hand attacks, one off-hand.
20th-level fighter: Four main hand attacks, one off-hand.
20th-level using Action Surge: Eight main hand attacks, one off-hand.

Dual wielding is overpowered from levels 1-4, about on par with other styles from levels 5-10, and starts to lag behind from level 11 onward.

 

[CapnZapp]

A few thoughts about TWF and sub-optimal.

First of all, many characters will never see play in the high teens, at which point GWF completely eclipses TWF in terms of damage output. If I remember correctly, GWF barely edges out TWF from 5th until whenever the 3rd attack comes in.

But the other thing to remember is that a two-weapon fighter is a fighter who gets to focus on Dex, which is a much more versatile ability than Strength. Your two-weapon fighter won't be doing as much damage as a high level great-sword fighter, because 4 attacks with a short-sword aren't as effective as 3 attacks with a great-sword (reroll low damage dice), but they'll get better initiative rolls, better dex saves, better stealth rolls, the ability to hack it in medium or light armor if stealth is at a premium, plus a little more survivability for the Attacked-While-Bathing scene that I'm always trying to run. Whether or not all those options are worth it to you is dependent on how you see your character, but it's a reminder that declarations of something being "optimal" usually involve focusing on one subset of the game. In this case, damage per round.

The dominance of great weapon fighting in terms of damage output is a nod to characters who choose to go full beefcake and muscle-bound. They give up that super valuable dexterity, and in exchange for that, they are the undisputed champions of splitting things in two with a great-sword.

And up until level 11 (which is the answer to "whenever the 3rd attack comes in") you're right.

At levels 5-10 I would say the game works okay. A little less damage, but you get other perks.

But at level 11 all of this nice talk breaks brutally, and you will feel like a fool for not choosing a better fighting style.

Granting the two-weapon fighter a second off-hand attack at this level greatly mitigates this problem. (Sure, at level 20 the problem reappears, but frankly, at that level there are lots of other things to worry about balance-wise... )

Even that other idea; to grant him a second reaction for opportunity attacks would probably be something.

Anything, really. Unless your campaign will end at that level or thereabouts.

Zapp

 

[aramis erak]

One of my players is a two weapon fighter so at 1st level attacks twice on his attack option. He's taken the duel weapon fighting style so adds his ability bonus to his second attack as well.

My question is action surge grants a bonus attack option so that's four attacks? Extra attack is a full extra attack option so that's another two attacks? I think he can get three extra attacks by high level so that would be ten attacks.

Is that right? Want to make sure my understanding is correct.

Also what's the disadvantages of fighting with two weapons?

Not quite...

For clarity - I'm using swing to refer to an attempt to hit. Attack action isn't a synonym.
Note that the two weapon bonus action is not an attack action, but a single off-hand swing.

On the attack action, the fighter gets 1 swing. Until 5th level, he always and only makes 1 swing per attack action.
If he has a second weapon in hand, he may use his bonus action to swing once with the second weapon
On his action surge action, he can take an attack action.

Now, at level 5, when he gets two attacks...
Attack Action: 2 strikes
Off-hand attack: 1 strike (it never goes up.)
Action surge: 2 more strikes via the attack action.

 

[Celtavian]

Without feats the fighting styles are amazingly well balanced. This is the most balanced fighting styles have been in any edition of D&D when not using feats.

At level 11 the average damage of the fighting styles is quite close:

Great Weapon Fighting: Greatsword: 13 (2d6+6 rerolling 1s and 2s once) x 3 attacks = 39 DPR
Two-Weapon Fighting: Longsword and Shortsword: 9 (1d8+5) x 3 attacks plus 8 (1d6+5) bonus attack = 35 DPR
Dueling Style: 12 x 3 attacks = 36 DPR
Archery Style: 9 x 3 attacks (1d8+5) 27 DPR
Sword and Board: 9 x 3 attacks (1d8+5) = 27 DPR

There's some argument that using a bonus action for the extra attack with TWF makes it a weaker option for an archetype like Battle-Master since they can use their bonus action in a useful fashion with Superiority Dice. A two-weapon fighter seems nice for the Champion Archetype as the increased number of attacks allows for more possible crits. Eldritch Knight with haste is favorable to Great Weapon Fighting and Dueling style, but not so far ahead as to be noticeably more powerful. Dueling Style does allow for the use of a shield whereas TWF does not. If you factor in magic items, a TWF will receive a greater benefit from magic weapons due to the increased number of attacks. I consider them all fairly well balanced without feats.

Once you include the feats Great Weapon Mastery and Sharpshooter, GWF and Archery style become vastly superior to every other option save perhaps Sword and Board with Shield Mastery. The utility and bonus action to knock people prone of Shield Mastery can be very useful for a defensive fighter. Where as Two-Weapon Fighting feat is weak and a barely noticeable boost to damage and defense. Hopefully they add a feat later on to put TWF on par with GWM and Archery style once feats are included.

Then there's the discussion of Dex-based TWF versus Str-based GWF. Without feats being able to focus on Dex is huge in 5E.

 

[Celtavian]

A few thoughts about TWF and sub-optimal.

First of all, many characters will never see play in the high teens, at which point GWF completely eclipses TWF in terms of damage output. If I remember correctly, GWF barely edges out TWF from 5th until whenever the 3rd attack comes in.

But the other thing to remember is that a two-weapon fighter is a fighter who gets to focus on Dex, which is a much more versatile ability than Strength. Your two-weapon fighter won't be doing as much damage as a high level great-sword fighter, because 4 attacks with a short-sword aren't as effective as 3 attacks with a great-sword (reroll low damage dice), but they'll get better initiative rolls, better dex saves, better stealth rolls, the ability to hack it in medium or light armor if stealth is at a premium, plus a little more survivability for the Attacked-While-Bathing scene that I'm always trying to run. Whether or not all those options are worth it to you is dependent on how you see your character, but it's a reminder that declarations of something being "optimal" usually involve focusing on one subset of the game. In this case, damage per round.

The dominance of great weapon fighting in terms of damage output is a nod to characters who choose to go full beefcake and muscle-bound. They give up that super valuable dexterity, and in exchange for that, they are the undisputed champions of splitting things in two with a great-sword.

True. The value of Dex in this game is huge now that you get damage from Dex. Initiative. Dex saves. Stealth and Acrobatics. The ability to wear light or medium armor and still have the same AC. The ability to switch hit using bows and crossbows with much longer range than thrown weapons. Absent feats, I think it is a very balanced exchange.

 

[Mephista]

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.

And optimization is about figuring out which way you can make a character concept do the most damage, be the best at skills, etc. Seriously, I understand that not everyone cares about optimization, but...

The barbarian is literally designed to use big weapons like the great axe. A berzerker would never want to touch two short swords, even at low levels. A totem barbarian could conceivably pull it off, though there is a diminishing return on the off-hand attack with low dice in light of things like a polearm, which adds the strength bonus to the hit. The class is simply not designed to support two weapons.

The Ranger? We know from recent articles that the Ranger spells are a necessary part of the classes design in terms of damage. TWF uses the same bonus action all those spells do. A Ranger Duelist using a shield and rapier and Hunter Marks will have superior damage and superior AC to someone just relying on TWF. The support for a TWF Ranger just doesn't work.

A Rogue? Any time you want to use two weapons, you are constantly trying to decide if its worth the loss of that turn's Cunning Action. There's too many bonus actions choices from the very beginning. And if you do hit with your main attack, is there a point to using that off-hand attack?

The Fighter is the only class that really can make good use of two weapon fighting, and that's assuming that we're not using War Magic or Bonus Action Maneuvers with any frequency.



So, in the case of two weapon fighting, its not just a case of realizing character concepts. Its that the mechanics in the game make it difficult to actually achieve and execute any concept that involves two weapon fighting since that bonus action is always so busy with other options critical to the concept.

With the way the game is set up, its not a question of "this way does does more damage." Its a question of "can you even do it with the action economy?"