D&D General What is two weapon fighting good for?

[Corinnguard]

Your house rule would make a lot more sense, so it sounds great to me. But the real purpose of duel weilding in the game and in literature to my mind is to show off, and because it's cool. I can't think of a fictional example where that isn't the case, at least.

I used to do Amtgard (a SCA-like LARP group) and even there, people who chose duel weild did it for the flash.

I would throw in Intimidation into the mix here. If you are dealing with somebody wielding two weapons, you are going to quickly realize that you have to constantly switch your focus from one weapon to the other weapon in mere seconds. One slip up, and your opponent will be past your defenses with one blade and then the other blade.

 

[Oofta]

I'd leave the rogue situation alone for a moment, I have already recognized they would require a separate buff to compensate.

Yeah, the more I think and talk about it, the more realize I really dislike the aesthetic of two weapon fighters flailing, swinging, or stabbing with both of their swords at the same time, in the same direction. I just can't help but picture it as a ridiculous thing. You'd always be better off two handing a weapon, power-wise and posture-wise.

From a game mechanics standpoint, I disagree. I've run dual wielders in games with a two-handed weapon PC and I was quite competitive. I've run simulations that show the same. A dual weapon fighter does more damage than a duelist with minimal AC penalty, especially if you take the dual wielder feat. GWM sounds great but the math actually works out that in most cases it's really not adding that much to your DPR. Ultimately though the people that put numbers into a spreadsheet and say there are "massive differences" are usually talking about a point or two of DPR, frequently at levels most campaigns simply don't reach.

If you just want to get rid of two weapon fighting, just ban it. I don't get it, there's plenty of dumb things we allow in D&D like barbarians getting AC from flexing their pecs or people walking around in armor (any armor, really) 24x7. Then again personally I wouldn't nerf something just because I don't like the visuals.

I forgot to implement a off-hand weapon parry mechanic in the HR above, though. Perhaps something like this:

Two-Weapon Fighting
When you take the Attack action and attack with a light melee weapon that you’re holding in one hand, you can use a bonus action to attack with a different light melee weapon that you’re holding in the other hand, but you can't use this bonus attack to target a creature you already attacked during your Attack action. You don’t add your ability modifier to the damage of the bonus attack, unless that modifier is negative.
If you have the Extra Attack feature, you can make as many attacks with your Two-Weapon Fighting bonus action as you can make with your Attack action.
If either weapon has the thrown property, you can throw the weapon, instead of making a melee attack with it.
Alternatively, you can give up your bonus attack (or attacks) and use your other melee weapon to parry. If you do so, until the start of your next turn, you have a +2 bonus to AC against melee attacks.

I'm well aware that these kind of small circumstantial bonuses are against 5e's general design philosophy of keeping everything dirt simple, but eh, personally I don't mind.

 

[Olrox17]

From a game mechanics standpoint, I disagree. I've run dual wielders in games with a two-handed weapon PC and I was quite competitive. I've run simulations that show the same. A dual weapon fighter does more damage than a duelist with minimal AC penalty, especially if you take the dual wielder feat. GWM sounds great but the math actually works out that in most cases it's really not adding that much to your DPR. Ultimately though the people that put numbers into a spreadsheet and say there are "massive differences" are usually talking about a point or two of DPR, frequently at levels most campaigns simply don't reach.

If you just want to get rid of two weapon fighting, just ban it. I don't get it, there's plenty of dumb things we allow in D&D like barbarians getting AC from flexing their pecs or people walking around in armor (any armor, really) 24x7. Then again personally I wouldn't nerf something just because I don't like the visuals.

Well, of course, I wasn't talking game mechanics there, I was talking aesthetics.

Game balance wise, IMO, TWF is extremely optimal for rogues (to the degree that a non-ranged, non-TWFing rogue is actively gimping itself hard), can be optimal for some builds especially at earlier levels, and is often suboptimal for other builds.

I feel absolutely no need to ban TWF. Overall, I don't find either over or under powered. I just find it to be a displeasing and inaccurate representation of how TWFing should (IMO) work.
As an aside, no players in any 5e campaigns I ran in several years have ever used TWF, with the exception of rogues. So, you know, I'm basically also trying to mix things up and see if this forlorn game element can become more interesting, and how.

 

[Burnside]

Yes, but with the added option to attack an extra target, instead (possibly several times if you have extra attack, especially the high level fighter version of extra attack). Do you believe that option to be completely inconsequential? I'm not being ironic or sarcastic here, just straight up asking.

Since I view this version of the off-hand attack to be suboptimal to the point that I’d never use the style, the off-hand parry would need to be better than a shield (especially if it burns my bonus action or reaction to use it). Maybe a +4 instead of a +2, but we’re also now wading into adding situational modifiers in a fiddly, Pathfinder-esque way that I personally also dislike having to deal with at the table.

 

[Olrox17]

Since I view this version of the off-hand attack to be suboptimal to the point that I’d never use the style

Ok, that's what I was asking. Thank you.

 

[MarkB]

Yeah, the more I think and talk about it, the more realize I really dislike the aesthetic of two weapon fighters flailing, swinging, or stabbing with both of their swords at the same time, in the same direction. I just can't help but picture it as a ridiculous thing. You'd always be better off two handing a weapon, power-wise and posture-wise.

Maybe, but the aesthetic of them flailing in two directions at once, and not being able to direct all their energy against a single opponent at all, feels even more ridiculous to me. This feels like a very awkward halfway-house - if the idea of them being able to attack with both weapons doesn't sit well with you, just drop that feature entirely in favour of defensive options, rather than this "yeah, you can still attack loads of times, but somehow you can't make all those attacks in the same direction."

As a suggestion, maybe allow dual-wielders to use the Riposte battle master maneuver as a reaction, but without the bonus damage die.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I would throw in Intimidation into the mix here. If you are dealing with somebody wielding two weapons, you are going to quickly realize that you have to constantly switch your focus from one weapon to the other weapon in mere seconds. One slip up, and your opponent will be past your defenses with one blade and then the other blade.

I'm reminded of the battle in one of the latter seasons of Game of Thrones, where several knights faced off against one legendary badass with two swords. Intimidating as all get out!

 

[Olrox17]

Maybe, but the aesthetic of them flailing in two directions at once, and not being able to direct all their energy against a single opponent at all, feels even more ridiculous to me. This feels like a very awkward halfway-house - if the idea of them being able to attack with both weapons doesn't sit well with you, just drop that feature entirely in favour of defensive options, rather than this "yeah, you can still attack loads of times, but somehow you can't make all those attacks in the same direction."

As a suggestion, maybe allow dual-wielders to use the Riposte battle master maneuver as a reaction, but without the bonus damage die.

You know, that's not a bad idea at all.

 

[Corinnguard]

I'm reminded of the battle in one of the latter seasons of Game of Thrones, where several knights faced off against one legendary badass with two swords. Intimidating as all get out!

Since skill checks don't cost you anything to use during a fight, you could make an Intimidation check to put your opponent at a Disadvantage while using two weapons.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Since skill checks don't cost you anything to use during a fight, you could make an Intimidation check to put your opponent at a Disadvantage while using two weapons.

Man, that is a much better choice than my insistence on making calligraphy rolls mid-fight. (One of these days, my character will be able to legibly sign his name with sword slashes.)