Options that don't work with Two Weapon Fighting. You're not saying "Want to be the best at two weapon fighting? Roll a fighter." You are saying "Want to use two-weapon fighting at all? Roll a fighter and hope we reach level 20, because that's the only situation where its worthwhile after mid-levels."
D&D 5E How many attacks should a two weapon fighter get?
- Thread starter Lord Vangarel
- Start date
the Jester
Legend
Looks like everyone is overlooking the value of splitting your damage across different attacks. Against low-hp enemies, this means potentially dropping an extra enemy each round.
No one is. Rather, everyone is looking at things like Frenzy, War Priest, Great Weapon Mastery (cleave works awesome against low hp enemies) and Polearm Mastery, where you can usually pull off a bonus action attack with your main hand weapon, so that you are getting the same number of attacks as fighting with two weapons, but superior damage on each hit. They're looking at Hex and Hunter Marks, which use up your bonus action to mark the enemy and are a main part of the playstyle of the appropriate classes. They are looking at class features like Cunning Action, Beastmaster, and Shield Mastery that also use up your bonus action to do non-attack things that are fairly cool.
One thing, when you're considering TWF is this - access to the Two Weapon Fighting Style means that its on par with a bonus action attack from Polearm or Great Weapon Mastery - the two feats auto add on your attribute for damage with bonus action attacks, while the default rules for using two shortswords don't. If you're not a class with that fighting style, and you have access to heavy weapons, then chances are that getting the feats are flat out outshine TWF so greatly. Very few people like being so clearly outshined - most want competitive choices, even if it does slightly less damage. Coupled with the need for two magic weapons and attunement rules, two weapon fighting has issues when faced with a heavy weapon feat's bonus action attack.
Two weapons works well with the fighter, given the limited number of bonus actions he has. Pretty easy to work with him. Plus, TW FS. I believe this is the only class where the style actually works well.
The Barbarian could theoretically pull it off, but the class requires you rely on Strength attacks, which negates the main advantage of TWF over two-handed weapons - the initiative bonus and potential stealth options. And I don't know anyone who'd go with a TWFing Berzerker with Frenzy right there; they wouldn't want to completely negate a class feature so thoroughly like that. So, that just leaves one subclass.
Skalds could do it - assuming you had breaks between giving out Inspirations, the occasional Healing Word, or you can fit it in with the spells you pick at level 10, should you get that far. A lot of competition for bonus actions makes it difficult to pull off.
Clerics depend on Domain, and if you're willing to juggle things instead of just putting a holy symbol on your shield. And you're not relying primarily on being a caster during most of your turns, which you should be doing. Kind of the point of being a full caster. War domain, the most weapon-dependent domain, as a feature for bonus action attacks. Attacking just isn't a major part of the class.
Druid doesn't TWF, moving on.
Monks use their own rule systems for multiple attacks, and not two weapon fighting. Thematically, you are fighting with two weapons, and likely the best class to pull off the style if you really want it.
Paladins. Designed for heavy weapons or sword/board. Zero incentive for going with two weapons.
Ranger - theoretically, it wants to allow TWF. It really does. But the weapon spells are a critical part of the class, and the vast majority of them use bonus actions. Beastmaster eats up either your full action (no attacks at all) or your bonus action (no off hand attack), so pointless there. So, unless you're using the spell-less ranger, the class doesn't really support the two weapon fighting style.
Rogue - as a backup if you miss with your main weapon and don't have something better in mind with Cunning Action, it works. Generally, I find that, should the first attack hit, most people ignore their off-hand weapon and Cunning Action something else. Technically, its wielding a second weapon, but it doesn't see much use. Its just... there. Over half the time, it doesn't feel like you're two weapon fighting.
Sorcerer - Going to have to look at Favored Soul closer, but I don't know how that class plays with buffs and quickened cantrips you'll likely be using, and how much you'll need an offhand arcane focus. That subclass is still being playtested.
Warlock - Even the bladelock has zero support for two weapon fighting, from the fact you can only pact-bond one weapon, to Hex being bonus action, to needing a free hand for spellcasting/rod/etc.
Wizard - nope.
There's a lot going on here beyond just "spreading out the damage."
Last edited:
S
Sunseeker
Guest
I use two-weapon fighting a lot. on multiple classes. The fact that it's not the best build on every class is NOT A PROBLEM. Play the way you want to play. The game is under no obligation to make every style of play in every class perfectly equitable.
redrick
First Post
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
Yes, so at level 11, the disparity between a great-sword fighter and a short-sword fighter becomes 5 damage per round. That's probably noticeable. (Our game is currently at level 7, so I haven't seen this in play.) This is, of course, assuming that your fighters have both maxed their prime stat by level 11, which they've certainly had plenty of opportunities to do. (It's also worth pointing out that giving the two-weapon fighter an extra bonus attack at level 11 would mean putting the two-weapon fighter back ahead of the gwf, since a short sword is worth about 8.5 damage per hit, which is probably not what we want.)
But, considering the extra flexibility the dex fighter gets, the 5 point spread might be worth it for the extra versatility. The dex fighter will have an AC of 17 in light armor — that's one point below the clanking plate mail on the strength fighter. The dex fighter will be able to double freely as an archer, and will quite possibly have picked up the archery style by now. (Remember all those threads about how fighting dragons is a spell tax on the wizard because the fighter is useless unless somebody casts "fly" on him?) The dex fighter will be much better suited against fireballs, breath weapons and any other dex save-y things. And the dex-fighter is going to be great at sneaking ahead with the rogue, before the plate and chain squad charge in.
Again, if dpr is all you want, from level 5 on, go GWF. End of discussion. If you want to play a dex fighter and take advantage of all that comes with that, I think TWF is totally do-able. You'll have more attacks, action surge, and better ability scores (or more feats) than the two weapon ranger. (Who makes up for it in spell-casting and utility.)
If that's true, then start talking about it, don't just say "its not a problem." So far, my experience in playing hasn't yielded anything close to yours. Give details.
Also, no one is saying anything about it being bad because its not the best build. They're saying that its far and away the worst option by a large margin on a large number of classes. If it was the worst by a small margin, then that wouldn't be an issue either, but a wide one? I'm personally saying that its bad because it requires ignoring class features in lot of cases in order to operate, which is bad design. So, yes, that is a problem.
redrick
First Post
TWF should definitely be a minority build. It won't make sense with a lot of classes.
Looking specifically at the rogue, though, I think you're greatly undervaluing "as a backup --". Most rogues that I've seen dual wield. Why? Because damage that would come from a successful sneak attack is far more important than the extra point of damage from wielding a rapier. If your first attack misses, which it often does, and you can get off a second attack with your off-hand, you've just doubled your chances at getting your all-mighty sneak attack in that round. It doesn't matter if you just hit with a dagger, because all you really care about is that nd6 sneak attack damage.
If the first attack succeeds, the rogue will probably choose to use cunning action and get out of there instead of coming in for scrap damage with the off-hand. That's not a criticism of the "build," though. The point of flexibility is that you have it when you need it.
Also, remember that you can throw a dual wielded weapon too, which means that you can use that short sword to attack one enemy and throw the dagger at an other. Depending on how strict your DM is with object interaction, this can be very valuable.
Now, would I multi-class my rogue into fighter to pickup TWF fighting style? Probably not. As a fighter/rogue I'd probably look at defensive or archery fighting styles.
S
Sunseeker
Guest
Why is it a problem? What obligation was there upon the system to make TWF viable?
As far as I'm concerned, I've only ever stated that TWF was fun.
Two-hander fighting sucked in open combat as well. If you were fighting in a big battle with a two-handed weapon, you were likely going to die. Sword and board is probably the predominant fighting style until the advent of plate armor because knights learned to use plate in the same fashion they used shields. It took stronger blows to punch through plate. Even then it was versatile weapons that were most popular because being able to use your off-hand for other things like guiding a horse or grabbing your opponent was important.
If you were good at TWF, you were a serious badass. The off-hand weapon in Fencing was quite popular and acted as a shield for parrying blows. A good TWF knew how to use his off-hand weapon in a defensive manner often as effective as a shield. They should have done something like that with TWF.
Similar Threads
