The OP still has some residue of your original assumption that the off-hand weapon has no stat modifier to To-Hit. Which, if that were true (the offhand attack had just PB for To-Hit), would definitely and unquestionably make TWF suck. It's a little trickier to demonstrate without that assumption.
"Unless you plan on using weapons that deal bludgeoning damage, there's no point."
So my idea of a dual-wielding Barbarian is pointless then? Really? Because that's an Idea I have that suits me fine. What does the TYPE of damage have to do with it anyway?
There is no meaningful, statistical difference between a scimitar and a shortsword. Since the only type of damage you cannot deal with finesse weapons is bludgeoning, Strength is a non-factor unless you plan on using such a weapon. And the only one you can choose is a light hammer; unless you take the Dual Wielder feat.
"Even your math, further up the page, is based on faulty assumptions. Are we supposed to believe a 20th level fighter still has only 16 Strength? No, if we're playing that far it's probably 20. This means the duelist gets to add 16 damage per round, for a total of 54. And the TWF user is adding 20 damage, for a total of 52.5. That's a much smaller gap for a minimalist game than you previously implied. Let them add in Dual Wielder for another 5 damage and they actually win out. They are expending a bonus action for an average of only +3.5 DPR, but that extra hit is also an extra Concentration check. Or an extra enemy felled. Or even just a more efficient damage distribution method."
I used 16 Str because beyond the point there's no way to know how the player will stat out the character, or how magic items will affect the character, or even if some weird unpredictable thing might provide a permanent stat boost (like some critter that you can eat his brains for a chance at permanent bonuses IIRC?). A V Human with Point Buy can get a Dex and Con of 16, Str of 11, and the rest of their stats at 10. Suppose I'm planning to run Dex to 20 to make up for the lack of a shield? I might Dip Barb for a level for Unarmored Defense which is based on, you guessed it, Dex and Con, plus now I can Rage for Resistance. Sure the Rage damage doesn't count for Finesse weapons but I may worry about that later because I'm looking for the feel of the character instead of the 'crunch' you mentioned.
I used a set number, +3, because it was the largest number I could consistently get during character creation. After that, the number of variables made my head hurt, and as I said in the OP I was already over 2k words. What if the Duelist takes a subclass that grants an extra attack at the first round of combat and the TWF doesn't? Or what if the Duelist takes a Multiclass into Ranger/Hordebreaker? They might get back the Attack they lose from not capstoning Fighter but they might also get a huge AC bonus from Multiattack Defense?
Unless you really want to run a spreadsheet on EVERY class and EVERY subclass you simply cannot predict what a character will look like after even a few levels.
As you demonstrated with your own math the Duelist is STILL getting slightly higher damage overall, with the higher AC, as opposed to the TWF who MIGHT be able to benefit from 'better damage distribution and 'forcing another Concentration check.' Okay...so what? I think that you're over-rating damage distribution and concentration checks by a wide margin in order to bolster your point. By the way, these also depend on how the DM runs the game. Making concentration saves is moot if none of the enemies are casters and there is no way to tell in a vacuum how often that occurs. I'm not even going to touch on damage distribution because there's no way to tell how much of a factor that is either.
It's not about what you think you "know". When you do experiments like this, you are allowed to make some basic assumptions. Assuming some kind of scaling is a rational assumption. After all, increasing the linked Ability Score increases both the odds of landing a hit and how much damage would be inflicted. You could start with the bare minimum under the Standard Array, 15 with a +2 modifier, and still reach 20 by 8th level. So long as you account for these changes and apply them evenly it's okay. I understand wanting to remove variables, because variables can lead to inaccuracies, and that's admirable. You just took it a step too far by making irrational assumptions.
And others have run more thorough analyses and put them on spreadsheets. They aren't hard to find.
Check yourself. Your proposal, however well-intentioned, demonstrably arose from a faulty assumption. No one here is trying to attack you or your goals. And your defensiveness, while somewhat understandable, has arguably turned hostile. And, to be honest, I'm not actually sure what your goal is. Because you never stated it; only that you wanted to "fix"...something. I'm not sure if it's Two-Weapon Fighting or the Dual Wielder feat. So, might I make a suggestion?
Have you heard of SMART goals? They need to be Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Realistic, and Time-Sensitive.
It's ludicrously easy to say that TWF, mechanically, doesn't live up to the fantasy. But what's the fantasy you're trying to emulate? See, this is one of the issues I have with the firearms rules. They don't live up to my idea of a gunpowder fantasy because the various crossbows are already the equivalent to single-shot pistols and rifles. They're better than anything available during the Renaissance or most of the 18th-century. Any firearms need to go a step further, and so much of D&D spun out of pulp literature and the American western that a "modern" firearm makes the most sense; even if it's just a middle 19th-century revolver. But that runs the risk of overshadowing the crossbows. See the problem? How do you make gunpowder fantasy attractive while still being mechanically balanced and verisimilitudinous?
I can't even tell how much more damage you want TWF to be capable of compared to sword and board. 50%? 20%? 10%? What about great weapons?
You've just been screaming into the void, and then you scream at us because "we just don't get it".
EDIT: I caught a math error while fixing a typo in the original post the error came from. The gap in a featless game is only 1.5 DPR at 20th level.
You're right. I have been swinging wildly. I mistakenly thought that making a 1-1 comparison against the most basic kind of character, the one against which I was basing my benchmarks and provided the numbers would be succinct enough. Apparently not.
Let's start with the goal: I want Two-Weapon Fighting to be good enough mechanically that it's as appealing as sword and shield to the players who like to build their characters mechanically.
I want TWF to be built in such a way that players who choose it don't feel left behind every time the GWM Fighter or Barb cranks out 50 points of damage in a round (not including Action Surge if they even have it) by level 10. I understand that unless a new Feat is created specifically for TWF similar to SS or GWM that the damage won't be equal...far from it. But I don't want the player looking at his 3D6+9 and wondering what he gave up the shield for. I want the numbers to be close enough...not equal, but close enough...that the decision to use TWF comes down to the feel and style of the character and not how far it lags in the damage category.
We've all seen countless debates on how to do the most damage per attack, the most damage per turn, and so on and so on. Unless we're including spells in the formula, the answer usually boils down to some variation of SS or GWM and how they can best be applied. I want to break that paradigm. I want the guy who is willing to forgo a shield in favor of an extra attack to be able to do at LEAST as much damage, consistently, as the guy who took Duelist and currently gets MORE damage AND a better AC. Say what you want about 'concentration checks' but I strongly feel that this is only fair. You do damage...I do damage. You do as much or more damage AND get a higher AC? No...that dog won't hunt.
And because I don't like it when people mess with MY stuff, I'm not willing to entertain any suggestions on nerfing anything to bring the numbers closer together. If after 5 years or more something was OP then there's been plenty of time to find it and fix it so obviously the other various Feats and Fighting Styles are working just fine.
Because of the countless different types of situations that can arise in combat, PLEASE don't try to sell me on nebulous advantages that TWF already enjoys like 'damage disbursement' or whatever. You would have to work long and hard to convince me that such a thing can be applied with enough certainty to be a factor. You might as well say 'this works great if you roll a 20' because IMHO the odds are about as likely.
Now that I've done the initial rant (for which I humbly apologize), been scolded for it (and justly so), can we please get back to the topic at hand?
And, hey, that's something to work with. I don't know if a barbarian or fighter can consistently dish out 50 points of damage per round by level 10, that might be hyperbole, but you at least want something comparable. So, let's figure out what they can accomplish and call that our baseline.
Great Weapon Fighting, as a fighting style, adds +1.33 damage per swing with a greatsword or maul. With a conservative estimate of +4 for the Strength modifier, that's 12.33 damage per swing without feats. That means we can expect an average of 24.67 (I'm rounding up, so sue me) damage per round. If we change the weapon to a greataxe, that's 22.66 DPR. If we opt for a glaive or halberd, that's ≈21 DPR. Now, barbarians get to add a +3 damage to each attack because of their rage damage bonus. And they're more likely to prefer a greataxe anyway, on account of Brutal Critical, so let's call it at 27 DPR. Split the high and low, and that's an average of 24 DPR.
And, for the sake of argument, we're ignoring subclasses because (A) there are so many to go over and (B) the idea is they would balance the scales anyway. But we do have our goal, we want something in the range of 21 to 27 DPR; ideally 24 DPR. And a similarly built TWF fighter, armed with scimitars or shortswords, would deal...22.5 DPR across all three attacks. And a barbarian loses the Strength modifier to damage, but gains +9 in rage damage bonus for a net increase of +5 for a total of 27.5 DPR. That's an average of 25 DPR across both classes, so at least we're in the ballpark.
All that is both SMART and RAW, but is it enough? Do we need to set the bar higher? After all, this does consume the bonus action.
And, hey, that's something to work with. I don't know if a barbarian or fighter can consistently dish out 50 points of damage per round by level 10, that might be hyperbole, but you at least want something comparable. So, let's figure out what they can accomplish and call that our baseline.
Great Weapon Fighting, as a fighting style, adds +1.33 damage per swing with a greatsword or maul. With a conservative estimate of +4 for the Strength modifier, that's 12.33 damage per swing without feats. That means we can expect an average of 24.67 (I'm rounding up, so sue me) damage per round. If we change the weapon to a greataxe, that's 22.66 DPR. If we opt for a glaive or halberd, that's ≈21 DPR. Now, barbarians get to add a +3 damage to each attack because of their rage damage bonus. And they're more likely to prefer a greataxe anyway, on account of Brutal Critical, so let's call it at 27 DPR. Split the high and low, and that's an average of 24 DPR.
And, for the sake of argument, we're ignoring subclasses because (A) there are so many to go over and (B) the idea is they would balance the scales anyway. But we do have our goal, we want something in the range of 21 to 27 DPR; ideally 24 DPR. And a similarly built TWF fighter, armed with scimitars or shortswords, would deal...22.5 DPR across all three attacks. And a barbarian loses the Strength modifier to damage, but gains +9 in rage damage bonus for a net increase of +5 for a total of 27.5 DPR. That's an average of 25 DPR across both classes, so at least we're in the ballpark.
All that is both SMART and RAW, but is it enough? Do we need to set the bar higher? After all, this does consume the bonus action.
You're right...the number I came up with was based on three attacks that a Fighter doesn't get until 11. I stand corrected.
At lvl 11 the Fighter gets 3 attacks. Assuming GWM (I must confess that I don't factor in the GW Fighting Style) and +4 for Str that's 3*14=42 without considering the dice (3*6.5=19.5) or 61.5 (just wanted you to know where I got the 50 from). This disregards Action Surge or any other 'burst' bonuses.
A TWF would have (same damage plus but from Dex) 4*4+4*3.5 (again, assuming light weapons) = 30.
Now the obvious mistake here is that we're assuming every attack hits and we all know that's not likely given the -5 to hit from GWM. Yes, I know, lots of ways to gain Advantage and all of that, but then we have to assume it for both examples and the rabbit hole gets deeper. I think it's fair to assume 1 miss for each so the GWM is closer to 40 damage and the TWF is closer to 22.
We also have the inequity that the GWM needed a Feat where the TWF does not which is one of the reasons why I used the Duelist in my math because it also doesn't require a Feat. If we give the TWF the Dual Wielder Feat then he can use D8 weapons which would add +1 damage per attack on average so with the example above (3 hits, 1 miss) he'd be doing 25 damage to the GWM's 40 but he would have a +1 AC advantage.
TBH I would almost be happy if Dual Wielder granted +2 AC and everything else stayed the same. Yes, the damage gulf is pretty wide but the fact that the TWF doesn't suffer -5 to hit and is no longer giving up their shield almost gets me there. Any other ways to add damage on a 'per attack' basis like Hunter's Mark, Barb Rage buff, etc only helps the TWF more because of the added attack. It also makes a clear distinction between GWM and TWF in that all else being equal, the TWF will always have the higher AC.
Feats are a pretty big game-changer. Great Weapon Master allows for a flat +10 damage with every attack, and it specifically only applies to the biggest and heaviest of weapons. If you include the fighting style, that comes to 65.49 DPR, but there's a catch. The to-hit chance is considerably lower, which will lower DPR contributions. We'd need to know the enemy's AC to determine what the effective DPR would be. And then every time a critical hit is scored, or an enemy is felled during the Attack action, they get another such attack with their Bonus Action.
Now, contrast that with a TWF fighter with the Dual Wielder feat. They're averaging 34 DPR, which is comparable to the GWF without using their feat. The big advantage here is the TWF fighter also benefits from +1 AC. And if they're using purely Dexterity, while they're limited to just the rapier, they have a stronger common saving throw and a higher average result on Dexterity ability checks; including three skills and their Initiative. Being able to act sooner can make a difference.
It's late, so I'll do a sample comparison of the two sometime tomorrow. Odds are good the difference won't be as pronounced as you think. Having said that, bigger weapons are intentionally designed to deal more damage.
Feats are a pretty big game-changer. Great Weapon Master allows for a flat +10 damage with every attack, and it specifically only applies to the biggest and heaviest of weapons. If you include the fighting style, that comes to 65.49 DPR, but there's a catch. The to-hit chance is considerably lower, which will lower DPR contributions. We'd need to know the enemy's AC to determine what the effective DPR would be. And then every time a critical hit is scored, or an enemy is felled during the Attack action, they get another such attack with their Bonus Action.
Now, contrast that with a TWF fighter with the Dual Wielder feat. They're averaging 34 DPR, which is comparable to the GWF without using their feat. The big advantage here is the TWF fighter also benefits from +1 AC. And if they're using purely Dexterity, while they're limited to just the rapier, they have a stronger common saving throw and a higher average result on Dexterity ability checks; including three skills and their Initiative. Being able to act sooner can make a difference.
It's late, so I'll do a sample comparison of the two sometime tomorrow. Odds are good the difference won't be as pronounced as you think. Having said that, bigger weapons are intentionally designed to deal more damage.
I confess that I deliberately left Crits out because we didn't specify subclasses and while the Champion grants double the crit range it falls short in some other areas. Action Surge benefits the GWM because the added Bonus Attack the TWF gets doesn't double.
As I mentioned before, I felt much more comfortable running the numbers without Feats (as you said, game-changer) because neither the stock Duelist nor the stock TWF requires them to work. The -5 from GWM is also not a factor.
I'm fine with the idea of the GWM fighter doing bigger damage because he gives up more to get it. Like the TWF he also can't use a shield so he dragging his AC right there. As you've shown, without the GWM feat the GW fighter versus the TWF actually works out pretty well. As I mentioned I don't factor in the GW fighting style but if that's their choice versus the TW style I suppose I should do that math as well to remain consistent. The other reason that both the GW fighter and the TWF compare so well is that they both top out at +5 to damage. Their to-hit numbers are the same so it's apples to apples there too. As you said, it's the Feats that really throw things out of whack.
This is why one of my suggested changes was altering the Dual Wielder Feat. As long as the damage is anywhere close, the AC is the same, and the cost to the character (in terms of fighting styles and Feats) is the same then I'm all happy. As I mentioned before, it's the fact that the Duelist out-performs the TWF in damage AND has a better AC that chaps me.
I'm on mobile, so forgive the formatting. I'll try to be brief.
A CR 11 creature has an AC of around 17. Taking -5 off the attack roll makes a considerable difference. Normally, we'd assume a +8 modifier for a 60% chance of success. So 34 × 0.6 = 20.4 effective DPR for TWF with DW.
But the odds are much lower (35%) with GWM. After all, they need a 14+ to hit on the d20, not merely 8+. And when you multiply their 67 (3*(2d6 + 1.33 + 14)) × 0.35 = 23.45.
That's a pretty minor improvement. We're talking +3 DPR at the cost of +1 AC, the ability to deal multiple damage types per round, and the ability to draw both weapons at once. but is it really +3 DPR?
37 × 0.6 = 22.2
So, really, the feat is only adding +1.23 DPR. If you can reliably get Advantage, that'll help a little. But the neat thing about bounded accuracy is these numbers don't change much.
Feats do let us do more than we otherwise might. But there's also some sleight of hand going on. Adding +10 damage sounds like a lot, and it is, but it's not really +10 damage. It's far less, but it helps us feel more powerful.
The feat really shines against enemies with fewer hit points and less AC, because its real strength is getting that Bonus Action attack. Its a trash mob killer.
I'm on mobile, so forgive the formatting. I'll try to be brief.
A CR 11 creature has an AC of around 17. Taking -5 off the attack roll makes a considerable difference. Normally, we'd assume a +8 modifier for a 60% chance of success. So 34 × 0.6 = 20.4 effective DPR for TWF with DW.
But the odds are much lower (35%) with GWM. After all, they need a 14+ to hit on the d20, not merely 8+. And when you multiply their 67 (3*(2d6 + 1.33 + 14)) × 0.35 = 23.45.
That's a pretty minor improvement. We're talking +3 DPR at the cost of +1 AC, the ability to deal multiple damage types per round, and the ability to draw both weapons at once. but is it really +3 DPR?
37 × 0.6 = 22.2
So, really, the feat is only adding +1.23 DPR. If you can reliably get Advantage, that'll help a little. But the neat thing about bounded accuracy is these numbers don't change much.
Feats do let us do more than we otherwise might. But there's also some sleight of hand going on. Adding +10 damage sounds like a lot, and it is, but it's not really +10 damage. It's far less, but it helps us feel more powerful.
The feat really shines against enemies with fewer hit points and less AC, because its real strength is getting that Bonus Action attack. Its a trash mob killer.
I agree and, yet again, this can vary so much that running the numbers is, to me, close to impossible.
So you're running the GWM fighter with 20 str. Great...say hello to the -5 to hit. Oh...but someone in the party has the Sapping Sting Cantrip? There's a good chance your target will be prone so now your -5 is a moot point. What about Bless? It's +1D4 on your to-hit rolls. Even an average roll goes a long way toward mitigating the GWM's -5 to hit.
A random party of random players (more common nowadays thanks to online play) can still run their team like a Special Forces hit squad if they want. They can also turn into the D&D cartoon where each one is running something fun with no consideration as to tactics or synergy. Hell, the same team run by players who know how to min-max will be many times more effective over their career than the exact same team run by casual players out to have a few laughs. This is why when we deconstruct something like TWF versus any other kind of fighting we need to stick to the numbers in a vacuum. The game has the potential to toss in way too many variables to do otherwise IMHO.
The reason why most of those variables aren't worth talking about, or spending any serious amount of time on if we do, is because they can be used with any possible build. They're universally applicable variables. And because of that, I wouldn't say that advantage renders the penalty a non-issue.
Advantage brings the success rate of the GWM fighter up to 57.75%. So, 67 x 0.5775 = 38.6925 or ≈38.7 effective DPR. And that is, mercifully, higher than even the TWF fighter can accomplish assuming every blow hits. So, it's a great tactic to use when you can have advantage. And, just for fun, the very same advantage yields a success rate of 84% for the TWF fighter. So, 34 x 0.84 = 28.56 effective DPR. We'll round up and say the feat and weapon choice produces, on average, +10.1 effective DPR. Still, both benefit. Advantage is useful; that's no surprise. But...
The fighter may not be able produce that advantage on their own. They might need to sacrifice an attack to shove an eligible target prone, rely on allies creating favorable conditions, or limit themself to a specific martial archetype.
They're also attacking a single, big weapon. And TWF can be used with minimal Strength and a much higher Dexterity; which carries other benefits. An elf archer, who starts with 17 Dexterity instead of 15, and has both Elven Accuracy and Sharpshooter is rolling for 3*(1d8+14) = 55.5 DPR with an accuracy of 45%. That's ≈30 effective DPR, or ≈46.3 effective DPR with advantage. And with the expansion rules from Tasha's they can change their fighting style at set levels. So when dual wielding begins to fall off, they could instead invest into archery. Or they could even have both fighting styles, all three feats, and 20 Dexterity by 16th level at the latest. And that's just incredibly versatile. In a 1-20 campaign, they could even pick up Medium Armor Master at 19th level for 18 AC, or 19 when TWF.
This is perhaps the biggest issue I have with theorycrafting: it's a flawed process that always spawns from a flawed premise. It's impossible to account for everything, and most people forget that everything above the baseline is just gravy.
GWF and TWF are comparable even under normal conditions. Their respective feats actually close the gap and make them more competitive. If that's not good enough for you, then what should the new goal be?
The reason why most of those variables aren't worth talking about, or spending any serious amount of time on if we do, is because they can be used with any possible build. They're universally applicable variables. And because of that, I wouldn't say that advantage renders the penalty a non-issue.
Advantage brings the success rate of the GWM fighter up to 57.75%. So, 67 x 0.5775 = 38.6925 or ≈38.7 effective DPR. And that is, mercifully, higher than even the TWF fighter can accomplish assuming every blow hits. So, it's a great tactic to use when you can have advantage. And, just for fun, the very same advantage yields a success rate of 84% for the TWF fighter. So, 34 x 0.84 = 28.56 effective DPR. We'll round up and say the feat and weapon choice produces, on average, +10.1 effective DPR. Still, both benefit. Advantage is useful; that's no surprise. But...
The fighter may not be able produce that advantage on their own. They might need to sacrifice an attack to shove an eligible target prone, rely on allies creating favorable conditions, or limit themself to a specific martial archetype.
They're also attacking a single, big weapon. And TWF can be used with minimal Strength and a much higher Dexterity; which carries other benefits. An elf archer, who starts with 17 Dexterity instead of 15, and has both Elven Accuracy and Sharpshooter is rolling for 3*(1d8+14) = 55.5 DPR with an accuracy of 45%. That's ≈30 effective DPR, or ≈46.3 effective DPR with advantage. And with the expansion rules from Tasha's they can change their fighting style at set levels. So when dual wielding begins to fall off, they could instead invest into archery. Or they could even have both fighting styles, all three feats, and 20 Dexterity by 16th level at the latest. And that's just incredibly versatile. In a 1-20 campaign, they could even pick up Medium Armor Master at 19th level for 18 AC, or 19 when TWF.
This is perhaps the biggest issue I have with theorycrafting: it's a flawed process that always spawns from a flawed premise. It's impossible to account for everything, and most people forget that everything above the baseline is just gravy.
GWF and TWF are comparable even under normal conditions. Their respective feats actually close the gap and make them more competitive. If that's not good enough for you, then what should the new goal be?
As I mentioned before, if they're comparable then why isn't TWF more popular? We've all seen scores of threads talking about the relative numbers so I don't think anyone can plead ignorance unless they're a new player trying to figure it all out for the first time.
So why do we see 5 or ten or more threads or builds based around pretty much anything BUT the TWF? I actually brought this up in another thread some time ago about how good the TWF Ranger would be because of Hunter's mark. I was immediately inundated with 'you might lose concentration' and 'sure but it takes the Bonus Action to cast and another to move it' arguments. The only time I've seen strong support for TWF is when the character is lucky enough to ay their hands on a magic item or items that promote TWF.
So if TWF is fine as-is then why don't more people use it? Why do the number-crunchers avoid it?
And, again, the comparison has moved from where I started, with two fighters with two different fighting styles and no Feats to TWF and GWM which, IMHO, is a bit like comparing a motorcycle to a trike; Sure, neither one is a car and both hand handlebars but after that, the similarities get pretty slim.
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
You guys really don't need to go through every single possible example and show the math. This isn't a thesis. We can all agree on the fact that it is commonly understood GWF does significantly more damage than TWF right? Cool. Now that we've all accepted the premise, lets answer the real question.
What to do that fixes TWF?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
You guys really don't need to go through every single possible example and show the math. This isn't a thesis. We can all agree on the fact that it is commonly understood GWF does significantly more damage than TWF right? Cool. Now that we've all accepted the premise, lets answer the real question.
What to do that fixes TWF?
I've already said we don't need to go through every possible scenario. Unfortunately, that open-ended a question isn't helpful either. To know what to fix, we need to know what's broken.
Is it just not popular? Is it not mechanically rewarding? It's been two pages, and we still haven't gotten a straight answer to these questions.
You guys really don't need to go through every single possible example and show the math. This isn't a thesis. We can all agree on the fact that it is commonly understood GWF does significantly more damage than TWF right? Cool. Now that we've all accepted the premise, lets answer the real question.
What to do that fixes TWF?
I've already said we don't need to go through every possible scenario. Unfortunately, that open-ended a question isn't helpful either. To know what to fix, we need to know what's broken.
Is it just not popular? Is it not mechanically rewarding? It's been two pages, and we still haven't gotten a straight answer to these questions.
The initial topic, and the numbers I provided, discussed one very specific point: All else being equal, a Duelist Fighter will not only do substantially more damage over their turn than a Two-Weapon Fighter but they also have the benefit of a better AC because they can carry a shield. I considered this to be unfair. Period. Full stop. End of statement.
I provided numbers (corrected because of errors on my part) to prove my point. I made three suggestions to mitigate the problem and one which included altering the Dual Wielder Feat. However, the core debate, and the numbers provided, were a direct breakdown of the Duelist versus the TWF. No Feats, no magic items, all else being as even as possible.
First, my numbers were shown to be wrong (thanks for that by the way). It was also shown that I had mistakenly said that the Bonus Action attack does not include to-hit modifier which it does. I fixed that too. However, the original numbers still proved out. At most benchmarks (number of attacks) along the Fighter's career using a one-handed D8 weapon and the Duelist Fighting Style will inflict as much or more damage overall than the Two-Weapon Fighter using twin 1D6 weapons (as they're restricted to under the 2-weapon fighting rules) and having the additional attack AS WELL AS having 2 higher AC. That is the cornerstone of my argument. If the Duelist had higher AC and did less damage that would be fine. If they had a lower AC and did more damage that would be fine too. The duelist enjoys BOTH higher damage AND +2 AC. I consider this to be unfair.
If you support this statement, please say so. I'll appreciate the support. If you disagree and can provide some sort of equitable proof, I'll be back to read it later this afternoon. However, PLEASE try to stay on-topic because right now people are discussing everything BUT the OP.
Somehow, the conversation got dragged into the weeds, first with 'TWF gives you better damage distribution' whatever that means. 'One more attack is one more concentration save' was also brought up (even though I don't believe it to be a salient point). 'Heavier weapons SHOULD do more damage' was also mentioned but as was pointed out the Rogue, their dagger, and their Sneak Attack would debate that point. GWM was then brought into the debate for some reason, despite the fact that my original post said nothing about Feats (neither of the two comparison Fighters had them).
I deliberately left all subclasses out of the discussion because adding them broadens the topic to 'this subclass is great but that one isn't.' Feats, multiclassing, and outside buffs and spells were likewise left out. I didn't mention Action Surge even though both of the Fighters in question have it and it benefits the Duelist because it can be used once per combat and IMHO the difference in buffs is so slight as to be unimportant.
If you consider the idea of bringing the TWF up to something approaching parity with the Duelist to be OP then please state your case and defend your point.
If your stance is 'I simply don't think it needs to be changed' then thank you for your viewpoint.
You guys really don't need to go through every single possible example and show the math. This isn't a thesis. We can all agree on the fact that it is commonly understood GWF does significantly more damage than TWF right? Cool. Now that we've all accepted the premise, lets answer the real question.
What to do that fixes TWF?
I've already said we don't need to go through every possible scenario. Unfortunately, that open-ended a question isn't helpful either. To know what to fix, we need to know what's broken.
Is it just not popular? Is it not mechanically rewarding? It's been two pages, and we still haven't gotten a straight answer to these questions.
The initial topic, and the numbers I provided, discussed one very specific point: All else being equal, a Duelist Fighter will not only do substantially more damage over their turn than a Two-Weapon Fighter but they also have the benefit of a better AC because they can carry a shield. I considered this to be unfair. Period. Full stop. End of statement.
Wait... really? It was just about the Duelist Fighter vs the TWF style Fighter? Then why muddy the OP by even mentioning the Rogue? When you mention fixing Dial Wielding in the title, are you referring to the Dual Wielder feat, or to the concept of wielding two weapons for the purposes of two-weapon fighting in general? (I guess my main point is that the OP could use revising for clarity.)
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Helpful rewriter of Japanese->English translation and delver into software codebases (she/e/they)
Going back to your original post, I'd vote for options 1 AND 4. Incorporate the Dual-Wielder feat (including the +1 to AC) into Two-Weapon Fighting as a Fighting Style for fighters, and Incorporate TWF into the Dual Wielder feat for non-fighters, or as a second fighting style for fighters. (edit: which I guess would be chosen by taking Fighting Initiate.)
You guys really don't need to go through every single possible example and show the math. This isn't a thesis. We can all agree on the fact that it is commonly understood GWF does significantly more damage than TWF right? Cool. Now that we've all accepted the premise, lets answer the real question.
What to do that fixes TWF?
I've already said we don't need to go through every possible scenario. Unfortunately, that open-ended a question isn't helpful either. To know what to fix, we need to know what's broken.
Is it just not popular? Is it not mechanically rewarding? It's been two pages, and we still haven't gotten a straight answer to these questions.
The initial topic, and the numbers I provided, discussed one very specific point: All else being equal, a Duelist Fighter will not only do substantially more damage over their turn than a Two-Weapon Fighter but they also have the benefit of a better AC because they can carry a shield. I considered this to be unfair. Period. Full stop. End of statement.
Wait... really? It was just about the Duelist Fighter vs the TWF style Fighter? Then why muddy the OP by even mentioning the Rogue? When you mention fixing Dial Wielding in the title, are you referring to the Dual Wielder feat, or to the concept of wielding two weapons for the purposes of two-weapon fighting in general? (I guess my main point is that the OP could use revising for clarity.)
Clipping out the math and the RAW descriptions for Duelist and TWF for brevity, here's the OP:
"So, how do we fix this? I’m all for keeping things simple where possible but we have enough factors at play here that we have quite a few options.
Do away with the Dual Wielder Feat altogether. This would assume that a character taking the Two-Weapon Fighting Style would no longer be restricted to the ‘Light weapon’ category. Would this cause the two-weapon fighter to now do more damage than their 1-handed counterpart? Yes, by a fair amount…but remember that in order to gain that extra damage they’re forgoing a shield completely AND dedicating their Bonus Action to attacking. I consider this to be a fair trade.
Instead of allowing a single off-hand Attack, change the rule to say that the Two-Weapon Fighting Style allows TWO off-hand Attacks as a Bonus Action. Note that the ‘Light’ restriction is still in place. This would mean that a typical 2-weapon Fighter would do 4-5 more damage per round on average than a 1-weapon Fighter. They’re still giving up their Bonus Action and the extra 2 AC for not having a shield, but now they’re getting something for the sacrifice.
Split the difference and state that anyone using the Two-Weapon Fighting Style can use a normal (non-Light) weapon in their main hand but must use a Light weapon in their off-hand. This would be one way to simulate the oft-seen fencer with a Rapier or similar weapon in their main hand and a Dagger in the other. This would increase their damage output slightly but they would still lag behind the Duelist Fighter which is why I consider this the worst of the options.
If we wanted to go back to the world of Feats (since many DMs do allow them and many DMs and players agree that they add a lot of depth to the game), we could add another option:
Change the Dual Wielder Feat to incorporate the Two-Weapon Fighting Style. This would enable the dual-wielder to regain their spot as the higher damage dealer but they still suffer a slight reduction in AC (1 instead of 2) as well as sacrificing an ASI to pay for it. This would also enable classes other than the Fighter and the Ranger to explore two-weapon fighting if they’re willing to forgo the ASI to take the Feat.
It should be noted that I have not in any way tried to balance this against any other classes or bonuses. I’m sure some of you will think (or say) ‘But if you add in the Hunter’s Mark for the Ranger then the damage gets disgusting!’ to which I would likely reply ‘Fighters don’t get Hunter’s Mark and Rangers top out at 2 Attacks so there’s a built-in ceiling’ and so on and so forth. I don’t want to get caught up in corner-case debates over something that I consider relatively basic."
Note that I didn't mention Sneak Attack in the OP. However, one of the 'in the weeds' counters to my point was 'bigger weapons should do more damage' which I countered with 'tell the Rogue, his dagger and his Sneak Attack' or words to that effect.
Now I wonder how many contributors to the thread actually have read the OP. If they haven't that would go a long way toward explaining the miscommunication IMHO.
Have you actually looked at the rogue's damage output at every tier of play? What about the barbarian, fighter, paladin, and ranger?
What, exactly, is unfair about sword and board vs TWF? The damage is comparable throughout all of Tier 2. Certain spells allow it to deal more damage. It specifically falls off for fighters because they get more than 2 attacks, but it remains competitive for everyone else. And a fighter who chooses it will still have a leg up on every other martial class because they have more attacks than anyone else.
You're argument can be reduced to a rather narrow niche. It's only a seemingly bad choice when compared to other possible fighters. And that mostly comes down to a lack of flexibility. For everyone else, it's awesome.
Have you actually looked at the rogue's damage output at every tier of play? What about the barbarian, fighter, paladin, and ranger?
What, exactly, is unfair about sword and board vs TWF? The damage is comparable throughout all of Tier 2. Certain spells allow it to deal more damage. It specifically falls off for fighters because they get more than 2 attacks, but it remains competitive for everyone else. And a fighter who chooses it will still have a leg up on every other martial class because they have more attacks than anyone else.
You're argument can be reduced to a rather narrow niche. It's only a seemingly bad choice when compared to other possible fighters. And that mostly comes down to a lack of flexibility. For everyone else, it's awesome.
The OP was basically a comparison of TWF vs other fighting styles, and while the damage is comparable, the TWF fighter sacrifices defense, and uses his bonus action while other styles don't. The other classes are irrelevant in this discussion.
Have you actually looked at the rogue's damage output at every tier of play? What about the barbarian, fighter, paladin, and ranger?
What, exactly, is unfair about sword and board vs TWF? The damage is comparable throughout all of Tier 2. Certain spells allow it to deal more damage. It specifically falls off for fighters because they get more than 2 attacks, but it remains competitive for everyone else. And a fighter who chooses it will still have a leg up on every other martial class because they have more attacks than anyone else.
You're argument can be reduced to a rather narrow niche. It's only a seemingly bad choice when compared to other possible fighters. And that mostly comes down to a lack of flexibility. For everyone else, it's awesome.
The OP was basically a comparison of TWF vs other fighting styles, and while the damage is comparable, the TWF fighter sacrifices defense, and uses his bonus action while other styles don't. The other classes are irrelevant in this discussion.
Thank you for your support.
The point might be niche, but it's also easy to fix. I think I stated before that I don't like nerfing one thing to balance something else. If GWM or another Feat was OP then they should have figured that out and fixed it over the past 5 years.
Is there an imbalance? The math proves that there is. Would it destroy game balance to fix it? No. So why not fix it? Other fixes have been made and if TWF has just not come up on their laundry list then that fine. I still think it's a big enough problem that it warrants a fix and the fix would likely be an easy one.
It's low-hanging fruit...why not do it?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
The OP still has some residue of your original assumption that the off-hand weapon has no stat modifier to To-Hit. Which, if that were true (the offhand attack had just PB for To-Hit), would definitely and unquestionably make TWF suck. It's a little trickier to demonstrate without that assumption.
Helpful rewriter of Japanese->English translation and delver into software codebases (she/e/they)
You're right. I have been swinging wildly. I mistakenly thought that making a 1-1 comparison against the most basic kind of character, the one against which I was basing my benchmarks and provided the numbers would be succinct enough. Apparently not.
Let's start with the goal: I want Two-Weapon Fighting to be good enough mechanically that it's as appealing as sword and shield to the players who like to build their characters mechanically.
I want TWF to be built in such a way that players who choose it don't feel left behind every time the GWM Fighter or Barb cranks out 50 points of damage in a round (not including Action Surge if they even have it) by level 10. I understand that unless a new Feat is created specifically for TWF similar to SS or GWM that the damage won't be equal...far from it. But I don't want the player looking at his 3D6+9 and wondering what he gave up the shield for. I want the numbers to be close enough...not equal, but close enough...that the decision to use TWF comes down to the feel and style of the character and not how far it lags in the damage category.
We've all seen countless debates on how to do the most damage per attack, the most damage per turn, and so on and so on. Unless we're including spells in the formula, the answer usually boils down to some variation of SS or GWM and how they can best be applied. I want to break that paradigm. I want the guy who is willing to forgo a shield in favor of an extra attack to be able to do at LEAST as much damage, consistently, as the guy who took Duelist and currently gets MORE damage AND a better AC. Say what you want about 'concentration checks' but I strongly feel that this is only fair. You do damage...I do damage. You do as much or more damage AND get a higher AC? No...that dog won't hunt.
And because I don't like it when people mess with MY stuff, I'm not willing to entertain any suggestions on nerfing anything to bring the numbers closer together. If after 5 years or more something was OP then there's been plenty of time to find it and fix it so obviously the other various Feats and Fighting Styles are working just fine.
Because of the countless different types of situations that can arise in combat, PLEASE don't try to sell me on nebulous advantages that TWF already enjoys like 'damage disbursement' or whatever. You would have to work long and hard to convince me that such a thing can be applied with enough certainty to be a factor. You might as well say 'this works great if you roll a 20' because IMHO the odds are about as likely.
Now that I've done the initial rant (for which I humbly apologize), been scolded for it (and justly so), can we please get back to the topic at hand?
It's okay. Sometimes we get away from ourselves.
And, hey, that's something to work with. I don't know if a barbarian or fighter can consistently dish out 50 points of damage per round by level 10, that might be hyperbole, but you at least want something comparable. So, let's figure out what they can accomplish and call that our baseline.
Great Weapon Fighting, as a fighting style, adds +1.33 damage per swing with a greatsword or maul. With a conservative estimate of +4 for the Strength modifier, that's 12.33 damage per swing without feats. That means we can expect an average of 24.67 (I'm rounding up, so sue me) damage per round. If we change the weapon to a greataxe, that's 22.66 DPR. If we opt for a glaive or halberd, that's ≈21 DPR. Now, barbarians get to add a +3 damage to each attack because of their rage damage bonus. And they're more likely to prefer a greataxe anyway, on account of Brutal Critical, so let's call it at 27 DPR. Split the high and low, and that's an average of 24 DPR.
And, for the sake of argument, we're ignoring subclasses because (A) there are so many to go over and (B) the idea is they would balance the scales anyway. But we do have our goal, we want something in the range of 21 to 27 DPR; ideally 24 DPR. And a similarly built TWF fighter, armed with scimitars or shortswords, would deal...22.5 DPR across all three attacks. And a barbarian loses the Strength modifier to damage, but gains +9 in rage damage bonus for a net increase of +5 for a total of 27.5 DPR. That's an average of 25 DPR across both classes, so at least we're in the ballpark.
All that is both SMART and RAW, but is it enough? Do we need to set the bar higher? After all, this does consume the bonus action.
You're right...the number I came up with was based on three attacks that a Fighter doesn't get until 11. I stand corrected.
At lvl 11 the Fighter gets 3 attacks. Assuming GWM (I must confess that I don't factor in the GW Fighting Style) and +4 for Str that's 3*14=42 without considering the dice (3*6.5=19.5) or 61.5 (just wanted you to know where I got the 50 from). This disregards Action Surge or any other 'burst' bonuses.
A TWF would have (same damage plus but from Dex) 4*4+4*3.5 (again, assuming light weapons) = 30.
Now the obvious mistake here is that we're assuming every attack hits and we all know that's not likely given the -5 to hit from GWM. Yes, I know, lots of ways to gain Advantage and all of that, but then we have to assume it for both examples and the rabbit hole gets deeper. I think it's fair to assume 1 miss for each so the GWM is closer to 40 damage and the TWF is closer to 22.
We also have the inequity that the GWM needed a Feat where the TWF does not which is one of the reasons why I used the Duelist in my math because it also doesn't require a Feat. If we give the TWF the Dual Wielder Feat then he can use D8 weapons which would add +1 damage per attack on average so with the example above (3 hits, 1 miss) he'd be doing 25 damage to the GWM's 40 but he would have a +1 AC advantage.
TBH I would almost be happy if Dual Wielder granted +2 AC and everything else stayed the same. Yes, the damage gulf is pretty wide but the fact that the TWF doesn't suffer -5 to hit and is no longer giving up their shield almost gets me there. Any other ways to add damage on a 'per attack' basis like Hunter's Mark, Barb Rage buff, etc only helps the TWF more because of the added attack. It also makes a clear distinction between GWM and TWF in that all else being equal, the TWF will always have the higher AC.
Feats are a pretty big game-changer. Great Weapon Master allows for a flat +10 damage with every attack, and it specifically only applies to the biggest and heaviest of weapons. If you include the fighting style, that comes to 65.49 DPR, but there's a catch. The to-hit chance is considerably lower, which will lower DPR contributions. We'd need to know the enemy's AC to determine what the effective DPR would be. And then every time a critical hit is scored, or an enemy is felled during the Attack action, they get another such attack with their Bonus Action.
Now, contrast that with a TWF fighter with the Dual Wielder feat. They're averaging 34 DPR, which is comparable to the GWF without using their feat. The big advantage here is the TWF fighter also benefits from +1 AC. And if they're using purely Dexterity, while they're limited to just the rapier, they have a stronger common saving throw and a higher average result on Dexterity ability checks; including three skills and their Initiative. Being able to act sooner can make a difference.
It's late, so I'll do a sample comparison of the two sometime tomorrow. Odds are good the difference won't be as pronounced as you think. Having said that, bigger weapons are intentionally designed to deal more damage.
I confess that I deliberately left Crits out because we didn't specify subclasses and while the Champion grants double the crit range it falls short in some other areas. Action Surge benefits the GWM because the added Bonus Attack the TWF gets doesn't double.
As I mentioned before, I felt much more comfortable running the numbers without Feats (as you said, game-changer) because neither the stock Duelist nor the stock TWF requires them to work. The -5 from GWM is also not a factor.
I'm fine with the idea of the GWM fighter doing bigger damage because he gives up more to get it. Like the TWF he also can't use a shield so he dragging his AC right there. As you've shown, without the GWM feat the GW fighter versus the TWF actually works out pretty well. As I mentioned I don't factor in the GW fighting style but if that's their choice versus the TW style I suppose I should do that math as well to remain consistent. The other reason that both the GW fighter and the TWF compare so well is that they both top out at +5 to damage. Their to-hit numbers are the same so it's apples to apples there too. As you said, it's the Feats that really throw things out of whack.
This is why one of my suggested changes was altering the Dual Wielder Feat. As long as the damage is anywhere close, the AC is the same, and the cost to the character (in terms of fighting styles and Feats) is the same then I'm all happy. As I mentioned before, it's the fact that the Duelist out-performs the TWF in damage AND has a better AC that chaps me.
I'm on mobile, so forgive the formatting. I'll try to be brief.
A CR 11 creature has an AC of around 17. Taking -5 off the attack roll makes a considerable difference. Normally, we'd assume a +8 modifier for a 60% chance of success. So 34 × 0.6 = 20.4 effective DPR for TWF with DW.
But the odds are much lower (35%) with GWM. After all, they need a 14+ to hit on the d20, not merely 8+. And when you multiply their 67 (3*(2d6 + 1.33 + 14)) × 0.35 = 23.45.
That's a pretty minor improvement. We're talking +3 DPR at the cost of +1 AC, the ability to deal multiple damage types per round, and the ability to draw both weapons at once. but is it really +3 DPR?
37 × 0.6 = 22.2
So, really, the feat is only adding +1.23 DPR. If you can reliably get Advantage, that'll help a little. But the neat thing about bounded accuracy is these numbers don't change much.
Feats do let us do more than we otherwise might. But there's also some sleight of hand going on. Adding +10 damage sounds like a lot, and it is, but it's not really +10 damage. It's far less, but it helps us feel more powerful.
The feat really shines against enemies with fewer hit points and less AC, because its real strength is getting that Bonus Action attack. Its a trash mob killer.
I agree and, yet again, this can vary so much that running the numbers is, to me, close to impossible.
So you're running the GWM fighter with 20 str. Great...say hello to the -5 to hit. Oh...but someone in the party has the Sapping Sting Cantrip? There's a good chance your target will be prone so now your -5 is a moot point. What about Bless? It's +1D4 on your to-hit rolls. Even an average roll goes a long way toward mitigating the GWM's -5 to hit.
A random party of random players (more common nowadays thanks to online play) can still run their team like a Special Forces hit squad if they want. They can also turn into the D&D cartoon where each one is running something fun with no consideration as to tactics or synergy. Hell, the same team run by players who know how to min-max will be many times more effective over their career than the exact same team run by casual players out to have a few laughs. This is why when we deconstruct something like TWF versus any other kind of fighting we need to stick to the numbers in a vacuum. The game has the potential to toss in way too many variables to do otherwise IMHO.
The reason why most of those variables aren't worth talking about, or spending any serious amount of time on if we do, is because they can be used with any possible build. They're universally applicable variables. And because of that, I wouldn't say that advantage renders the penalty a non-issue.
Advantage brings the success rate of the GWM fighter up to 57.75%. So, 67 x 0.5775 = 38.6925 or ≈38.7 effective DPR. And that is, mercifully, higher than even the TWF fighter can accomplish assuming every blow hits. So, it's a great tactic to use when you can have advantage. And, just for fun, the very same advantage yields a success rate of 84% for the TWF fighter. So, 34 x 0.84 = 28.56 effective DPR. We'll round up and say the feat and weapon choice produces, on average, +10.1 effective DPR. Still, both benefit. Advantage is useful; that's no surprise. But...
The fighter may not be able produce that advantage on their own. They might need to sacrifice an attack to shove an eligible target prone, rely on allies creating favorable conditions, or limit themself to a specific martial archetype.
They're also attacking a single, big weapon. And TWF can be used with minimal Strength and a much higher Dexterity; which carries other benefits. An elf archer, who starts with 17 Dexterity instead of 15, and has both Elven Accuracy and Sharpshooter is rolling for 3*(1d8+14) = 55.5 DPR with an accuracy of 45%. That's ≈30 effective DPR, or ≈46.3 effective DPR with advantage. And with the expansion rules from Tasha's they can change their fighting style at set levels. So when dual wielding begins to fall off, they could instead invest into archery. Or they could even have both fighting styles, all three feats, and 20 Dexterity by 16th level at the latest. And that's just incredibly versatile. In a 1-20 campaign, they could even pick up Medium Armor Master at 19th level for 18 AC, or 19 when TWF.
This is perhaps the biggest issue I have with theorycrafting: it's a flawed process that always spawns from a flawed premise. It's impossible to account for everything, and most people forget that everything above the baseline is just gravy.
GWF and TWF are comparable even under normal conditions. Their respective feats actually close the gap and make them more competitive. If that's not good enough for you, then what should the new goal be?
As I mentioned before, if they're comparable then why isn't TWF more popular? We've all seen scores of threads talking about the relative numbers so I don't think anyone can plead ignorance unless they're a new player trying to figure it all out for the first time.
So why do we see 5 or ten or more threads or builds based around pretty much anything BUT the TWF? I actually brought this up in another thread some time ago about how good the TWF Ranger would be because of Hunter's mark. I was immediately inundated with 'you might lose concentration' and 'sure but it takes the Bonus Action to cast and another to move it' arguments. The only time I've seen strong support for TWF is when the character is lucky enough to ay their hands on a magic item or items that promote TWF.
So if TWF is fine as-is then why don't more people use it? Why do the number-crunchers avoid it?
And, again, the comparison has moved from where I started, with two fighters with two different fighting styles and no Feats to TWF and GWM which, IMHO, is a bit like comparing a motorcycle to a trike; Sure, neither one is a car and both hand handlebars but after that, the similarities get pretty slim.
Do you have any data beyond forum grumbling to indicate how "popular" it actually is?
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
You guys really don't need to go through every single possible example and show the math. This isn't a thesis. We can all agree on the fact that it is commonly understood GWF does significantly more damage than TWF right? Cool. Now that we've all accepted the premise, lets answer the real question.
What to do that fixes TWF?
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
I've already said we don't need to go through every possible scenario. Unfortunately, that open-ended a question isn't helpful either. To know what to fix, we need to know what's broken.
Is it just not popular? Is it not mechanically rewarding? It's been two pages, and we still haven't gotten a straight answer to these questions.
The initial topic, and the numbers I provided, discussed one very specific point: All else being equal, a Duelist Fighter will not only do substantially more damage over their turn than a Two-Weapon Fighter but they also have the benefit of a better AC because they can carry a shield. I considered this to be unfair. Period. Full stop. End of statement.
I provided numbers (corrected because of errors on my part) to prove my point. I made three suggestions to mitigate the problem and one which included altering the Dual Wielder Feat. However, the core debate, and the numbers provided, were a direct breakdown of the Duelist versus the TWF. No Feats, no magic items, all else being as even as possible.
First, my numbers were shown to be wrong (thanks for that by the way). It was also shown that I had mistakenly said that the Bonus Action attack does not include to-hit modifier which it does. I fixed that too. However, the original numbers still proved out. At most benchmarks (number of attacks) along the Fighter's career using a one-handed D8 weapon and the Duelist Fighting Style will inflict as much or more damage overall than the Two-Weapon Fighter using twin 1D6 weapons (as they're restricted to under the 2-weapon fighting rules) and having the additional attack AS WELL AS having 2 higher AC. That is the cornerstone of my argument. If the Duelist had higher AC and did less damage that would be fine. If they had a lower AC and did more damage that would be fine too. The duelist enjoys BOTH higher damage AND +2 AC. I consider this to be unfair.
If you support this statement, please say so. I'll appreciate the support. If you disagree and can provide some sort of equitable proof, I'll be back to read it later this afternoon. However, PLEASE try to stay on-topic because right now people are discussing everything BUT the OP.
Somehow, the conversation got dragged into the weeds, first with 'TWF gives you better damage distribution' whatever that means. 'One more attack is one more concentration save' was also brought up (even though I don't believe it to be a salient point). 'Heavier weapons SHOULD do more damage' was also mentioned but as was pointed out the Rogue, their dagger, and their Sneak Attack would debate that point. GWM was then brought into the debate for some reason, despite the fact that my original post said nothing about Feats (neither of the two comparison Fighters had them).
I deliberately left all subclasses out of the discussion because adding them broadens the topic to 'this subclass is great but that one isn't.' Feats, multiclassing, and outside buffs and spells were likewise left out. I didn't mention Action Surge even though both of the Fighters in question have it and it benefits the Duelist because it can be used once per combat and IMHO the difference in buffs is so slight as to be unimportant.
If you consider the idea of bringing the TWF up to something approaching parity with the Duelist to be OP then please state your case and defend your point.
If your stance is 'I simply don't think it needs to be changed' then thank you for your viewpoint.
Wait... really? It was just about the Duelist Fighter vs the TWF style Fighter? Then why muddy the OP by even mentioning the Rogue? When you mention fixing Dial Wielding in the title, are you referring to the Dual Wielder feat, or to the concept of wielding two weapons for the purposes of two-weapon fighting in general? (I guess my main point is that the OP could use revising for clarity.)
Helpful rewriter of Japanese->English translation and delver into software codebases (she/e/they)
Going back to your original post, I'd vote for options 1 AND 4. Incorporate the Dual-Wielder feat (including the +1 to AC) into Two-Weapon Fighting as a Fighting Style for fighters, and Incorporate TWF into the Dual Wielder feat for non-fighters, or as a second fighting style for fighters. (edit: which I guess would be chosen by taking Fighting Initiate.)
Clipping out the math and the RAW descriptions for Duelist and TWF for brevity, here's the OP:
"So, how do we fix this? I’m all for keeping things simple where possible but we have enough factors at play here that we have quite a few options.
If we wanted to go back to the world of Feats (since many DMs do allow them and many DMs and players agree that they add a lot of depth to the game), we could add another option:
It should be noted that I have not in any way tried to balance this against any other classes or bonuses. I’m sure some of you will think (or say) ‘But if you add in the Hunter’s Mark for the Ranger then the damage gets disgusting!’ to which I would likely reply ‘Fighters don’t get Hunter’s Mark and Rangers top out at 2 Attacks so there’s a built-in ceiling’ and so on and so forth. I don’t want to get caught up in corner-case debates over something that I consider relatively basic."
Note that I didn't mention Sneak Attack in the OP. However, one of the 'in the weeds' counters to my point was 'bigger weapons should do more damage' which I countered with 'tell the Rogue, his dagger and his Sneak Attack' or words to that effect.
Now I wonder how many contributors to the thread actually have read the OP. If they haven't that would go a long way toward explaining the miscommunication IMHO.
Have you actually looked at the rogue's damage output at every tier of play? What about the barbarian, fighter, paladin, and ranger?
What, exactly, is unfair about sword and board vs TWF? The damage is comparable throughout all of Tier 2. Certain spells allow it to deal more damage. It specifically falls off for fighters because they get more than 2 attacks, but it remains competitive for everyone else. And a fighter who chooses it will still have a leg up on every other martial class because they have more attacks than anyone else.
You're argument can be reduced to a rather narrow niche. It's only a seemingly bad choice when compared to other possible fighters. And that mostly comes down to a lack of flexibility. For everyone else, it's awesome.
The OP was basically a comparison of TWF vs other fighting styles, and while the damage is comparable, the TWF fighter sacrifices defense, and uses his bonus action while other styles don't. The other classes are irrelevant in this discussion.
Thank you for your support.
The point might be niche, but it's also easy to fix. I think I stated before that I don't like nerfing one thing to balance something else. If GWM or another Feat was OP then they should have figured that out and fixed it over the past 5 years.
Is there an imbalance? The math proves that there is. Would it destroy game balance to fix it? No. So why not fix it? Other fixes have been made and if TWF has just not come up on their laundry list then that fine. I still think it's a big enough problem that it warrants a fix and the fix would likely be an easy one.
It's low-hanging fruit...why not do it?