I enjoyed the math analysis on the Barb vs Fighter vs Monk (which you can find here if you are interested: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?339963-Barbarian-vs-Fighter-vs-Monk&highlight=)
and I decided to do another one. Two Weapon Fighting is a discussion I have seen come up a few times recently, and since I am intrigued by the new system they are trying with TWF, I wanted to see what was on the table.
THF vs TWF
Note: Ignoring damage, TWF is currently the superior option. This is an important point to mention right off the bat. Currently TWF does not provide any attack penalties as it did in previous editions, and it comes with a number of inherent advantages:
1) Ability to hit more than 1 target. Great for mook killing.
2) Equal vulnerability to damage resistance. In previous editions, DR was a flat number, so a single strong attack was superior at penetrating it. Currently in 5e damage resistance affects 1 strong attacks or 2 weaker attacks equally, so TWF no longer has a weakness here.
3) Greater chance to crit. Beyond the damage here, any "crit based effects" get generated more often.
4) Less damage overkill. With a THF swing, i might kill a monster and do 10 extra damage. That damage is effectively wasted. With TWF, there are cases where I will kill a monster with the first swing, and transfer all of the second attacks damage to a second target. Overall, my damage efficiency is better.
5) Ability to apply effects that require hitting to activate more often. Things like stunning blow, sneak attack, poison, etc. These abilities simply require a hit, and so more attacks equals a greater chance to hit.
6) Some classes default to TWF. Right now for the monk and rogue, there isn't any real reason NOT to use TWF. These classes don't get access to the big THF weapons or shields as a default, so they naturally move to TWF as a baseline. Rangers technically can use the big weapons, but since they are normally dex based they will often default to a pair of lighter weapons as well.
That's a pretty solid list. THF sole schtick is big damage, barring any special feats. Now that's a perfectly valid schtick, but it shows us that to be balanced, THF must do more DPR than TWF. So this gives us a good starting point for our analysis.
Scenario 1: Baseline
[sblock]
Lets look at a 1st level character with no fancy tricks. He is just choosing some weapons. I will give him a damage ability stat of +3 to start (i feel that most classes will have at least a +3 in their stat). For equipment:
2 short swords (a pair of d6 weapons basically represents every TWF combo right now, as no light weapon does more than a d6)
A greataxe (GA) or a greatsword (GS) (I've wanted to see how these two weapons stack against each other anyway, so might as well throw both in to see how they compare with each other).
So lets look at some damage numbers: I am assuming a crit on a 20 in these cases.
40% chance to hit
TWF: 4.2
GS: 4.025
GA: 4.1
50%
TWF: 5.2
GS: 5.025
GA: 5.05
60%
TWF: 6.2
GS: 6.025
GA: 6
Alterations: I'm showing some example numbers for brevity, but i went ahead and recorded damage numbers for the whole range of attack rolls. Even at very high or low attack numbers, TWF still does the most damage. The difference ranges from about 2% at the highest attack rolls, to about 8% at low numbers. The Great Sword does more damage than the Great Axe when the attack is greater than 55%, else the Great Axe does more.
Analysis: The numbers are very interesting. TWF is actually THE BEST DPR combination for all cases under this scenario, though the difference is not extreme. The GS and GA are better with different niches, the Greatsword when attack chances are high, the GreatAxe when chances are lower. And since its right around 55% where the swing occurs, I would think there are enough scenarios to make both useful.
Scenario Modification: So lets make a few baseline changes to see if it makes a difference.
What if we gave the character a +5 damage stat? It narrows the gap slightly, but the results do not change.
What if the crit range was 19-20, as can happen with a fighter? The Greataxe becomes superior to the Greatsword in all cases. TWF remains stronger at attack rates above 40%, below that GA THF becomes stronger. If we increase the crit range to 18-20, TWF is only better above 60%.
Adding Numbers, the effect: Its important to note that all bonuses added to damage right now actually improve TWF more than THF. For example, the clerics holy damage or the barbarians rage damage improves TWF even more. So from the baseline, the additional bonuses of classes and spells will make TWF even stronger.
[/sblock]
Scenario 2: Multiple Attacks
[sblock]There is still some confusion on how multiple attacks interact with TWF. Its either 4 attacks (2 attacks of TWF each) or 3 attacks (2 attacks and 1 TWF attack). Mearls has indicated so far that the 3 attack option is the correct approach. The 4 attack approach would not change our current conclusions, so lets see if the 3 attack method (which should favor THF more) makes a difference.
With this scenario, we will assume a +5 stat (as a higher level character usually has the chance to beef up their stat). Again lets not look at any fancy tricks (most of them favor TWF anyway), and see if anything changes.
40%
TWF: 8.225
GS: 9.45
GA: 9.6
50%
TWF: 10.275
GS: 11.85
GA: 11.9
60%
TWF: 12.325
GS: 14.25
GA: 14.2
Analysis: In this case, the tables have turned. THF beats TWF by a good margin, 14 - 20% more damage is done in this scenario, and the results are consistent through the attack range.
[/sblock]
Scenario 3: The Hulking Barbarian
[sblock]
The Barbarian right now probably represents as classic a THF archetype as there is. As he is the class that generally demonstrates the raw fury of THF, no analysis would be complete without seeing what he does with the choice of weapons. We have already shown that at the baseline TWF is better, and the barbs bonuses actually make that gap larger. So lets take him up to 10th level where he has those 2 attacks and some greater crit damage, and see if THF shines bright.
We will give the barbarian rage (which adds 3 damage), and a 20 (+5) strength for the analysis. For the barbarian's brutal critical, I am assuming I use the weapon base damage (and not the special critical die for the GA, though I think its not completely clear).
40%
TWF (1 attack): 13.92
GA (1 attack): 11.625
TWF (2 attacks): 22.62
GA (2 attacks): 23.25
50%
TWF (1 attack): 15.72
GA (1 attack): 13.075
TWF (2 attacks): 25.57
GA (2 attacks): 26.15
60%
TWF (1 attack): 17.16
GA (1 attack): 14.235
TWF (2 attacks): 27.93
GA (2 attacks): 28.47
Analysis: For the full 2 attack scenario, THF wins out, though only slightly at about 1-5% (about as much as TWF wins out in the 1 attack baseline scenario given above). Just to compare the difference, in the 1 attack scenario TWF wins handily by 20%. Just to give context, at 50%, the 1 attack TWF was 2.6 DPR greater than THF. That means that the THF weapon would need over a +5 bonus to damage in order to match it.
[/sblock]
Overall:
I have cautioned against using math analysis in the past to make strong conclusions. Usually they are better at pointing out trends to watch for in your playtesting. However, sometimes the conclusions are strong enough that we can make concrete statements, and in this case we can.
As it stands right, at low levels (below 8th for most classes, below 4th for fighters) TWF is the BEST offensive choice....period. Not only does it provide the most damage, but it also provides a lot more flexibility in how many targets you can hit. The vast majority of intangibles (other bonuses, special abilities) tend to all strengthen TWF, so I do not believe they take away from the conclusion. If there were a lot of "add weapon dice to X" type things in the game currently, our conclusion might not be as concrete, but they are rare, and the few that exist (such as add your weapon die on a critical) do not take away from TWF's superiority.
Once 2 attacks come in, the conclusions are murkier. As a baseline, THF is much stronger than TWF with 2 attacks assuming only 1 extra attack from TWF. However, the barb examples showed us that enough secondary bonuses can let TWF close the gap...and once again when damage is equal TWF is superior due to its flexibility and consistency.
Personal Thoughts: I have finished the math part, this section is my own conjecture. I personally like how TWF works right now. I like the idea of using a big sword, and then switching to a pair of short swords when a mob comes in. 5e makes it very easy to draw and stow weapons, so weapon changing is easy. I like that I don't have to change attack numbers to bust out a TWF combo, and i like how the flexibility lets me play a character that doesn't use a "weapon style" but shifts his weapon use to the battlefield...and doesn't feel penalized by that.
So with that in mind, I think the current math scenario should change. To me, THF should be offensively superior to TWF. TWF has the flexibility, and unlike previous additions it doesn't cost me a lot to get that flexibility so I don't mind if my offense if a little weaker. I think that even at 1 attack, THF should win out, and then at 2 attacks TWF should generate 4 attacks total so that the gap between the two styles doesn't change too much.
How to do that? My first though is to give back x1.5 strength mod to damage for THF that 3.5 had. 5e doesn't have to worry about an insane power attack bonus, or a 40 strength fighter that gets a huge extra bonus. At best, a person is getting a +2 extra damage from a 18-20 strength, which I don't see as unreasonable. I personally don't feel that would be too strong vs sword and board either....AC bonuses are very rare so a +2 AC is still a really good thing, but this is just conjecture I'd have to see it in play. And of course, if that is too strong, perhaps a straight up +1 to damage could be factored in for THF.
One thing for sure, I don't want to go back to the days of attack penalties for TWF...too much fiddly math imo. I like the system as is, and I hope that with some simple tweaks they could establish a new balance baseline that would improve the game.
and I decided to do another one. Two Weapon Fighting is a discussion I have seen come up a few times recently, and since I am intrigued by the new system they are trying with TWF, I wanted to see what was on the table.
THF vs TWF
Note: Ignoring damage, TWF is currently the superior option. This is an important point to mention right off the bat. Currently TWF does not provide any attack penalties as it did in previous editions, and it comes with a number of inherent advantages:
1) Ability to hit more than 1 target. Great for mook killing.
2) Equal vulnerability to damage resistance. In previous editions, DR was a flat number, so a single strong attack was superior at penetrating it. Currently in 5e damage resistance affects 1 strong attacks or 2 weaker attacks equally, so TWF no longer has a weakness here.
3) Greater chance to crit. Beyond the damage here, any "crit based effects" get generated more often.
4) Less damage overkill. With a THF swing, i might kill a monster and do 10 extra damage. That damage is effectively wasted. With TWF, there are cases where I will kill a monster with the first swing, and transfer all of the second attacks damage to a second target. Overall, my damage efficiency is better.
5) Ability to apply effects that require hitting to activate more often. Things like stunning blow, sneak attack, poison, etc. These abilities simply require a hit, and so more attacks equals a greater chance to hit.
6) Some classes default to TWF. Right now for the monk and rogue, there isn't any real reason NOT to use TWF. These classes don't get access to the big THF weapons or shields as a default, so they naturally move to TWF as a baseline. Rangers technically can use the big weapons, but since they are normally dex based they will often default to a pair of lighter weapons as well.
That's a pretty solid list. THF sole schtick is big damage, barring any special feats. Now that's a perfectly valid schtick, but it shows us that to be balanced, THF must do more DPR than TWF. So this gives us a good starting point for our analysis.
Scenario 1: Baseline
[sblock]
Lets look at a 1st level character with no fancy tricks. He is just choosing some weapons. I will give him a damage ability stat of +3 to start (i feel that most classes will have at least a +3 in their stat). For equipment:
2 short swords (a pair of d6 weapons basically represents every TWF combo right now, as no light weapon does more than a d6)
A greataxe (GA) or a greatsword (GS) (I've wanted to see how these two weapons stack against each other anyway, so might as well throw both in to see how they compare with each other).
So lets look at some damage numbers: I am assuming a crit on a 20 in these cases.
40% chance to hit
TWF: 4.2
GS: 4.025
GA: 4.1
50%
TWF: 5.2
GS: 5.025
GA: 5.05
60%
TWF: 6.2
GS: 6.025
GA: 6
Alterations: I'm showing some example numbers for brevity, but i went ahead and recorded damage numbers for the whole range of attack rolls. Even at very high or low attack numbers, TWF still does the most damage. The difference ranges from about 2% at the highest attack rolls, to about 8% at low numbers. The Great Sword does more damage than the Great Axe when the attack is greater than 55%, else the Great Axe does more.
Analysis: The numbers are very interesting. TWF is actually THE BEST DPR combination for all cases under this scenario, though the difference is not extreme. The GS and GA are better with different niches, the Greatsword when attack chances are high, the GreatAxe when chances are lower. And since its right around 55% where the swing occurs, I would think there are enough scenarios to make both useful.
Scenario Modification: So lets make a few baseline changes to see if it makes a difference.
What if we gave the character a +5 damage stat? It narrows the gap slightly, but the results do not change.
What if the crit range was 19-20, as can happen with a fighter? The Greataxe becomes superior to the Greatsword in all cases. TWF remains stronger at attack rates above 40%, below that GA THF becomes stronger. If we increase the crit range to 18-20, TWF is only better above 60%.
Adding Numbers, the effect: Its important to note that all bonuses added to damage right now actually improve TWF more than THF. For example, the clerics holy damage or the barbarians rage damage improves TWF even more. So from the baseline, the additional bonuses of classes and spells will make TWF even stronger.
[/sblock]
Scenario 2: Multiple Attacks
[sblock]There is still some confusion on how multiple attacks interact with TWF. Its either 4 attacks (2 attacks of TWF each) or 3 attacks (2 attacks and 1 TWF attack). Mearls has indicated so far that the 3 attack option is the correct approach. The 4 attack approach would not change our current conclusions, so lets see if the 3 attack method (which should favor THF more) makes a difference.
With this scenario, we will assume a +5 stat (as a higher level character usually has the chance to beef up their stat). Again lets not look at any fancy tricks (most of them favor TWF anyway), and see if anything changes.
40%
TWF: 8.225
GS: 9.45
GA: 9.6
50%
TWF: 10.275
GS: 11.85
GA: 11.9
60%
TWF: 12.325
GS: 14.25
GA: 14.2
Analysis: In this case, the tables have turned. THF beats TWF by a good margin, 14 - 20% more damage is done in this scenario, and the results are consistent through the attack range.
[/sblock]
Scenario 3: The Hulking Barbarian
[sblock]
The Barbarian right now probably represents as classic a THF archetype as there is. As he is the class that generally demonstrates the raw fury of THF, no analysis would be complete without seeing what he does with the choice of weapons. We have already shown that at the baseline TWF is better, and the barbs bonuses actually make that gap larger. So lets take him up to 10th level where he has those 2 attacks and some greater crit damage, and see if THF shines bright.
We will give the barbarian rage (which adds 3 damage), and a 20 (+5) strength for the analysis. For the barbarian's brutal critical, I am assuming I use the weapon base damage (and not the special critical die for the GA, though I think its not completely clear).
40%
TWF (1 attack): 13.92
GA (1 attack): 11.625
TWF (2 attacks): 22.62
GA (2 attacks): 23.25
50%
TWF (1 attack): 15.72
GA (1 attack): 13.075
TWF (2 attacks): 25.57
GA (2 attacks): 26.15
60%
TWF (1 attack): 17.16
GA (1 attack): 14.235
TWF (2 attacks): 27.93
GA (2 attacks): 28.47
Analysis: For the full 2 attack scenario, THF wins out, though only slightly at about 1-5% (about as much as TWF wins out in the 1 attack baseline scenario given above). Just to compare the difference, in the 1 attack scenario TWF wins handily by 20%. Just to give context, at 50%, the 1 attack TWF was 2.6 DPR greater than THF. That means that the THF weapon would need over a +5 bonus to damage in order to match it.
[/sblock]
Overall:
I have cautioned against using math analysis in the past to make strong conclusions. Usually they are better at pointing out trends to watch for in your playtesting. However, sometimes the conclusions are strong enough that we can make concrete statements, and in this case we can.
As it stands right, at low levels (below 8th for most classes, below 4th for fighters) TWF is the BEST offensive choice....period. Not only does it provide the most damage, but it also provides a lot more flexibility in how many targets you can hit. The vast majority of intangibles (other bonuses, special abilities) tend to all strengthen TWF, so I do not believe they take away from the conclusion. If there were a lot of "add weapon dice to X" type things in the game currently, our conclusion might not be as concrete, but they are rare, and the few that exist (such as add your weapon die on a critical) do not take away from TWF's superiority.
Once 2 attacks come in, the conclusions are murkier. As a baseline, THF is much stronger than TWF with 2 attacks assuming only 1 extra attack from TWF. However, the barb examples showed us that enough secondary bonuses can let TWF close the gap...and once again when damage is equal TWF is superior due to its flexibility and consistency.
Personal Thoughts: I have finished the math part, this section is my own conjecture. I personally like how TWF works right now. I like the idea of using a big sword, and then switching to a pair of short swords when a mob comes in. 5e makes it very easy to draw and stow weapons, so weapon changing is easy. I like that I don't have to change attack numbers to bust out a TWF combo, and i like how the flexibility lets me play a character that doesn't use a "weapon style" but shifts his weapon use to the battlefield...and doesn't feel penalized by that.
So with that in mind, I think the current math scenario should change. To me, THF should be offensively superior to TWF. TWF has the flexibility, and unlike previous additions it doesn't cost me a lot to get that flexibility so I don't mind if my offense if a little weaker. I think that even at 1 attack, THF should win out, and then at 2 attacks TWF should generate 4 attacks total so that the gap between the two styles doesn't change too much.
How to do that? My first though is to give back x1.5 strength mod to damage for THF that 3.5 had. 5e doesn't have to worry about an insane power attack bonus, or a 40 strength fighter that gets a huge extra bonus. At best, a person is getting a +2 extra damage from a 18-20 strength, which I don't see as unreasonable. I personally don't feel that would be too strong vs sword and board either....AC bonuses are very rare so a +2 AC is still a really good thing, but this is just conjecture I'd have to see it in play. And of course, if that is too strong, perhaps a straight up +1 to damage could be factored in for THF.
One thing for sure, I don't want to go back to the days of attack penalties for TWF...too much fiddly math imo. I like the system as is, and I hope that with some simple tweaks they could establish a new balance baseline that would improve the game.
Last edited:
