D&D 5E Two Weapon Fighting

[The Grassy Gnoll]

Just checking I've got this right: anyone can fight with two weapons, so long as they are Light (PHB p195).
Restrictions:
- Only Light weapons
- No Ability Mod to damage (unless it's negative) for second attack
- Uses a Bonus Action
- No negative to hit that I can see?

Best damage from a Light weapon is 1d6 (scimitar or shortsword for martial, or handaxe for simple).

Assuming a fairly average STR of 12 (+1), average DPR assuming two hits would be (3.5+1)+(3.5)=8

Two Attacks = two Attack rolls = two chances to Crit.

Compare the same character (STR 12) using the best possible martial weapon in average damage terms, the greatsword (2d6, two handed). Average damage is (3.5)+(3.5)+1, or 8. Exactly the same average but only one chance to Crit.

Max damage on the other hand (assuming no crits):
Two scimitars = (6+1)+6 = 13
Greatsword = (6+6)+1 = 13

Whatever the STR mod, it scales in the same way. But Scimitars and shortsword both count as Finesse so your DEXy midnight runners can take advantage of their high Dex. Only Wizards and Sorcerors don't have proficiency in the relevant weapon (ie simple weapons or one of the specifically stated weapons). Everyone else can take advantage of this. Bards, Monks, Barbarians, Rogues, Warlocks, Clerics, etc.

Even a Fighter taking Two Weapon Fighting Style needs to use Light weapons (only the DW feat permits better damage weapons, and Feats are Optional - so this doesn't take Feats like GWM into account).

It just occurred to me, that wielding two light weapons will generally be a much better tactic than one serious weapon for a lot of classes, if for no other reason than it gives you two chances to Crit.

I I know it uses your Bonus action but especially at lower levels folks like the Barbarian can go play with this and have fun.

Am I wrong here, have I missed something?

if I'm right, is this something others have noticed?

if so, have your players implemented it?

and if I'm right, is this not a bit broken?

 

[Guest 6801328]

Doubling your chance to crit doesn't really add anything, unless you have some other bonus whenever you crit. Twice the chance to get a crit, half as much benefit from doing so.

 

[famousringo]

You pretty much have it.

Wizards and sorcerers can two-weapon fight with daggers for a little less damage.

It's not broken at all though. Two-weapon fighting is more effective with Hex, Hunter's Mark, Sneak Attack and Smite, but you'll notice two of those require a bonus action to apply, so they compete with the attack itself. So while a dual-wielding warlock can Hex and attack for 2d6+Str on the first round, a greatsword warlock can Hex and hit for 3d6+Str. For sneak attackers, it also competes with Cunning Action. Take the damage or your mobility, can't have both. And crucially, there is no -5/+10 feat for dual-wielders to break the game with.

Two-handed fighting scales better with Extra Attack, Action Surge, feats, Haste, and opportunity attacks. And the feats are way, way better. If you can get a bonus attack, like frenzy barbarians, Great Weapon Masters or Polearm Masters, you'll do far more damage than a dual-wielder. Also leaves a hand semi-free for spellcasting.

Generally, dual-wielding works great for low level characters that don't have extra attacks, feats, or cool bonus actions. As you level up, it becomes a worse and worse option from an optimization standpoint.

 

[The Grassy Gnoll]

I'm thinking for Raging Barbarians it works nicely as the +2 rage damage isn't classed as an Ability Modifier so it should still apply to the second attack. Which is nice.

 

[mellored]

What they said.

Unless you have something that happens on-hit, there's not much benefit from 1d6+1d6 over 2d6. Crits don't change that.

And given that multi-attack happens to the majority of weapon using classes. It becomes worse with 1d6+1d6+1d6 (3d6) compared to 2d6+2d6 (4d6).
Plus it uses your bonus action.


Though there are a few upsides, such as having 2 attacks let you potentially kill 2 kobolds instead of over killing 1. And there are a number of good on-hit effects, like sneak attack, rage, or improved smite that can make it work.

 

[mellored]

I'm thinking for Raging Barbarians it works nicely as the +2 rage damage isn't classed as an Ability Modifier so it should still apply to the second attack. Which is nice.

Yes, barbs are a good candidate for TWF.

Though don't forget that rage takes a bonus action to start. So you can't TWF on your first turn.

 

[LightningArrow]

If you have no constant use for a bonus action and don't want a shield, it's good. Otherwise, problems arise very quickly.
At low levels, I say it's the best fighting style, but it gets to be the worst at higher ones.
Also remember that you can add DEX to damage in 3.5, seems to me you're thinking in 3.5 style (like I used to).

 

[Kithas]

Barbarians, rogues(more chances to sneak atk), and paladins are the best options for twf. Anyone using hex/hunters mark or divine favor/crusaders mantle are also good. Basically more on hit effects the better twf is. In general a two handed weapon will be better after extra attack esp if you have a good use for your bonus action.

 

[RulesJD]

The biggest reason you don't see more TWF is the PAM feat. You get the bonus attack, that you can use GWM with, and your ability modifier with just 1 feat. Plus you get the added benefit of GWF style.

I'd say just let dual wielders have their ability modifier on both attacks and call it day.

 

[The Grassy Gnoll]

Thanks for the feedback, all.

So I'm not going mad, after all.