D&D 5E Is a fighter with 2h weapons worth it?

[Marco Behrmann]

Compared to 1h+shield?

 

[mrpopstar]

Define "worth it."

 

[pdegan2814]

Compared to 1h+shield?

Your question is far too vague. There isn't one "optimal" fighter build, it's about what you want your fighter's character is, and what you want his role to be. In simplest terms, two-handed weapons tend more towards offensively-minded builds, intent on dealing as much damage as possible(with things like the Great-Weapon Fighting style and Great Weapon Master feat), while 1h+shield and its higher AC potential lends itself to more defensive builds(with things like the Protection fighting style and the Shield Master feat). Plus, two-handed Reach weapons are generally used for different purposes than weapons like Greatswords or Greataxes.

What sort of Fighter are you looking to build, combat-wise?

 

[The Grassy Gnoll]

Define 'worth it': what is most valuable to you?

If you mean, damage per round, there are others here who can give you chapter and verse about GWF v Duelling v TWF/DW.

If you mean, is AC more valuable than damage potential, there are pluses and minuses IMO.

If it's a concept thing and you fancy cleaving enemies with a great sword or warhammer, then yes.

Hard to answer without a bunch of other peoples' opinions on THEIR preferences, unless you can give a wee bit more info on what you hope to achieve; what you see as 'worth'.

 

[pming]

Hiya!

As others have said...what does "worth it" mean to you? And is your DM allowing Feats? Also, how cool is your guys campaign world? In other words, is it pretty much a cookie cutter FR backdrop primarily used as a place to put the dungeons...or is it more mature and in-depth, with it's own important role-playing aspects? Basically, is it "D&D: The Movie", or is it "Game of Thrones"? Because if it's the later, then country preferences, availability of such weapons, and a whole host of other things come into play...but if it's just "Y'know, a world...who cares?...we have dungeons to explore and goblins to slay!", then none of that RP stuff matters and you can focus on things like DPS vs. Defense and whatnot.

So...more info is needed is what I guess I'm trying to say.

^_^

Paul L. Ming

 

[Oofta]

TWF is worth it if it fits the vision you have for your character and you want to get an extra attack (an advantage which becomes decreases in importance with high level play).

Do you think it will be fun? It's worth it. Looking for max DPR? Check out some of the other threads that get into the kind of detail I personally don't care much about because they don't take into account your personal style nor the style of game. Someone who regularly faces numerous mooks or creatures with really high defenses are probably going to do better with TWF.

Honestly though, the differences in damage output are minimal overall.

 

[jaelis]

The simple answer is yes, particularly if you play with feats.

(Doesn't mean it's the only way to go, but it certainly is a mechanically sound choice.)

 

[SmokingSkull]

As a guy who enjoys slamming his enemies with big weapons when it comes to D&D I'd say yes, especially if you're allowed to take feats which imo gets even better!

 

[zaratan]

If you play with feats just check great weapon master, polearm master, sentinel...

now is hard to see why a fighter would use a shield.

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

From a damage/mechanics perspective I'd really say totally if with feats, not really if without. Duelist fighting style + shield is generally just better IMO compared to Great Weapon Style (which is annoyingly fiddly for such weak gains).