This is a repost from the Mechanics Forum as I was told that that Forum is for rules as they are, not suggested homebrews and changes. I'll be deleting that one shortly and attempting to bring the conversation here.
Let’s Fix Dual Wielding
(Because Right Now It Sucks!)
Yes…it’s a clickbait title but unlike many of the corner-case arguments I see in the Mechanics section like whether or not a person can jump underwater, I firmly believe that dual-wielding (or two-weapon fighting) is broken enough to need a fix and popular enough to warrant one.
(Note: If you already understand how the mechanics of two-weapon fighting work, you can skip down to the ‘New Stuff’ section to save time)
Let’s begin with RAW: (From the PHB)
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. You don't add your ability modifier to the damage of the bonus attack unless that modifier is negative.
If either weapon has the thrown property, you can throw the weapon, instead of making a melee attack with it.
Pretty cut and dried. You will normally make your Attacks with your ‘main’ hand and gain any bonuses for determining to-hit and damage modifiers. If you’re holding two weapons and BOTH of them are light, then you can make an additional Attack with your off-hand weapon but that Attack receives no modifiers for damage unless those modifiers are negative.
But what if you really want those modifiers with your off-hand weapon? You’re in luck because of something that many Martial classes get called Fighting Styles. Not all classes have access to all Fighting Styles so the following is taken from the Fighter in the PHB:
Two-Weapon Fighting
When you engage in two-weapon fighting, you can add your ability modifier to the damage of the second attack.
Again, pretty cut and dried. With the two-weapon fighting Fighting Style, any attacks you make with your off-hand weapon can now use the same stat bonuses as your main weapon. Note that the other stipulations to two-weapon fighting (both weapons must be Light) still apply.
But what if you want to wield a weapon in one or both hands that aren’t Light? Well, we have that covered too. Step right up and join me in the Feat section of the PHB:
Dual Wielder
You master fighting with two weapons, gaining the following benefits:
You gain a +1 bonus to AC while you are wielding a separate melee weapon in each hand.
You can use two-weapon fighting even when the one-handed melee weapons you are wielding aren’t light.
You can draw or stow two one-handed weapons when you would normally be able to draw or stow only one.
With this Feat and the two-weapon Fighting Style, you can now wield any weapon in one hand that does NOT have the two-handed property. In other words, if you want to simulate a certain pseudo psychic dancer turned death machine from a certain space-western movie that I love and wield two Battle Axes, you can!
Now we come to the gist of the conversation: In many ways, fighting this way sucks according to the rules of 5e. Without the Dual Wielder Feat, you cannot use weapons other than light this way at all, and remember that Feats are an optional rule and some DMs don’t allow them. The other drawback is that you need a Fighting Style (which many classes don’t have) in order to do this and gain the stat modifiers for the off-hand weapon. Multiclassing is also optional and so the idea of simply taking a 1-level ‘dip’ into the Fighter class in order to gain the Fighting Style may not be an option either. This means that only TWO classes get access to the Two-Weapon Fighting Style and that’s Fighters and Rangers.
So…I can’t do the classic two-dagger rogue Assassin? Sure you can…but the second dagger will have no stat modifiers for damage. What about the Paladin? He gets Fighting Styles, doesn’t he? Yes, he does…but RAW he doesn’t have access to Two-Weapon Fighting. And now we begin to see the crux of the problem. Two-weapon fighting, as written, is something that sort of falls between the cracks of 5e.
“But, Darkaiser…do we really NEED something different than what we have?” I hear you cry. In my opinion, yes…yes we do. To me, D&D and gaming, in general, are all about bringing fantasies to life. Google ‘two-weapon fantasy movies’ and you’ll see more examples than you can shake a browser at. I WANT the option to do that. As long as what I’m asking for is not OP and it’s cool with the DM then I want to be able to do it. Fighting with two weapons is one of those things.
Maths
I put this in as a separate section because some players hate the topic and some of us love it and IMHO if you’re going to be talking numbers (which I am about to do) then you need to have a foundation of understanding to start from. The following will assume RAW with no multiclassing and no Feats.
A Fighter with an effective stat (that is, the stat that they’re using to generate their to-hit bonus) of 16 has a to-hit bonus of +3+Proficiency Bonus (or PB). For a level 1 character that’s 3+2=5 or +5 to hit. The heaviest weapon they can wield one-handed does 1D8 damage (Longsword, Battle Ax, Rapier, etc) so that’s a base of +5 to hit with 1D8 damage. If the character’s effective stat also adds a damage modifier (there are circumstances where this doesn’t happen but we’ll assume the character is leaning toward either Str or Dex and not trying to do both) then that damage modifier is the same as the to-hit modifier without the PB or +3. So, we have a level 1 Fighter with a single attack doing 1D8+3 damage with a +5 to hit. That’s our baseline.
If the same character wants to pick up a second weapon, they have to downgrade their main weapon to a Light one (typically 1D6). Now the same Fighter is attacking with (main hand) 1D6 with +5 to hit and +3 damage as well as 1D6 with no modifiers. Depending on LOTS of variables, I’m willing to bet that the additional attack, even without modifiers, will make up for the weapon downgrade so the character is wielding 2 weapons and doing roughly the same damage as before. What’s the problem?
There are two issues; AC and the fact that the single-weapon Fighter can do more damage in the long run. The Fighter wielding 2 weapons is basically keeping up with the character with 1 weapon that rolls a higher damage die...in the beginning levels. However, the Fighter with the free hand can carry a shield that adds +2 to their AC which is a distinct advantage. Also, the 2-weapon Fighter will be doing less damage due to a lack of damage modifiers to the off-hand attack that can sometimes be more impressive than the damage die itself. In theory, the two-weapon fighting style should counter this by granting the damage modifiers to that off-hand attack and it does…in theory.
The Fighter with the heavier weapon and the shield will always have one less attack than the 2-weapon fighter. They will also always have +2 AC. The 2-weapon fighter will also be constrained to weapons with the Light trait so nothing Heavy or 2-handed and the weapons will do 1D6 or less. Note that you CAN choose to carry a D8 weapon and simply forgo the damage bonuses for whatever off-hand weapon you take but now you're giving up the +2 AC and still not making up the difference in damage.
The following is the typical damage done by our two sample Fighters, one with a D8 weapon and one with 2 D6 weapons and the Two-Weapon Fighting style. I’m assuming the same stat bonuses (+3) for both:
As you can see, this works pretty well for the 2-weapon Fighter. They have more damage consistently from start to finish. However, we haven’t taken into account all of the factors yet. Firstly, the single-weapon Fighter will have 2 higher AC compared to their two-weapon counterpart. This seems to be a fair tradeoff…more damage for less protection. But the single-weapon Fighter hasn’t taken a Fighting Style yet. They don’t NEED a Fighting Style to simply pick up a weapon and a shield. What if the first example Fighter took, say, the Dueling Fighting Style? Now they’re going to deliver +2 damage on every hit. This means 9.5 damage per turn from levels 1-4, 19 damage from 5-10, 28.5 from 11-19, and 38 damage at level 20.
As you can see, the second Fighter no longer has a damage advantage over his one-weapon comrade after level 4. So, in the long run, a 2-weapon Fighter will wind up doing LESS damage overall, as well as having LESS AC, than a simple ‘sword and board’ character. No offense, but this sucks. When the 2-handed fighter enjoyed a damage advantage over the 1-handed, you could justify the difference. It’s essentially the same thing as using a bigger weapon, doing more damage per hit, with no shield. You’re hitting harder but getting hit more often in return. This seems fair to me. But after looking at the whole issue, you can see that the 2-handed fighter has a significant disadvantage right out of the gate with the lower AC and it only gets worse as they fall behind in damage output.
New Stuff
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.
After more than two THOUSAND words I decided to put this out there for the masses to see and comment on.
I fix it in my games in 2 ways. 1. I split the difference, allowing the 'mainhand' weapon to be anything wieldable in one hand and the 'offhand' weapon to be any light weapon. 2. By offering a whole entire new default reaction people can use called Parry. It lets anyone wielding a weapon do a minor reduction in damage to an incoming attack against them as a reaction (d4+prof). Kicker is: If they have two weapons in hand, they can Riposte when they do this, allowing them to get a hit in with their light 'offhand' weapon in the same manner as TWF bonus action extra attack does.
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.
I make an addition to the Dual Wielder feat that merges your TWF attack into the Attack action. While not strictly raising your damage ceiling, it gives you back your bonus action which may be used for damage or utility.
Eating your bonus action is the worst part of TWF in my experience. Especially for classes like Ranger or Rogue which have multiple class/subclass-defining BA features, TWF just isn't worth giving those up. And the whole point is that you can make a flurry of blows in the same amount of time someone else could swing a huge axe.
I make an addition to the Dual Wielder feat that merges your TWF attack into the Attack action. While not strictly raising your damage ceiling, it gives you back your bonus action which may be used for damage or utility.
Eating your bonus action is the worst part of TWF in my experience. Especially for classes like Ranger or Rogue which have multiple class/subclass-defining BA features, TWF just isn't worth giving those up. And the whole point is that you can make a flurry of blows in the same amount of time someone else could swing a huge axe.
But that's what things like Swashbuckler Rogue's Fancy Footwork or the Mobile feat are for - to allow a hit-hit and run without taking an opportunity attack. And for Rogues, the second melee weapon is there more as insurance you can land that 1 Sneak Attack.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Helpful rewriter of Japanese->English translation and delver into software codebases (she/e/they)
Swashbuckler and Mobile still have a huge advantage with no action disengages. And this goes beyond Cunning Action - nearly every rogue subclass has a special bonus action as well. Yes, it's fine that they need to pay a price for a better chance to land SA, but I'd argue that price is higher than other classes pay to get their features to work.
My main point though is everyone's concern about this tends to look at the damage of TWF vs two-handed weapons with the assumption that as long as they are roughly equal, TWF is fine. There's rarely any discussion that even if the damage is comparable, TWF has to use more actions to do it. For many builds, the loss of your BA is a steep price to pay.
I don't disagree with you that TWF does have the cost of eating your bonus action, although the comparison of damage dealt for each Fighting Style applies to classes that get Fighting Styles - many of which don't have features that would expect them to use a bonus action every turn, so they have less reason not to use the bonus action to attack. If you roll the TWF style bonus attack into the main Action, you're effectively giving them Extra Attack early, just at the cost of using less-damaging weapons.
Meanwhile, playing a Rogue is all about dealing the big damage while keeping your skin intact, about having to make split-second decisions on what of several possible bonus actions to take. Being caught in melee sucks, but you don't even need to be in melee to TWF - just throw 2 daggers! Now you don't need to Disengage! Or maybe you should just hide in the corner and attack with a crossbow, and then Hide again. In any case, I like how the limitations in the standard mechanics of the Rogue encourages you to play like a Rogue.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Helpful rewriter of Japanese->English translation and delver into software codebases (she/e/they)
Swashbuckler and Mobile still have a huge advantage with no action disengages. And this goes beyond Cunning Action - nearly every rogue subclass has a special bonus action as well. Yes, it's fine that they need to pay a price for a better chance to land SA, but I'd argue that price is higher than other classes pay to get their features to work.
My main point though is everyone's concern about this tends to look at the damage of TWF vs two-handed weapons with the assumption that as long as they are roughly equal, TWF is fine. There's rarely any discussion that even if the damage is comparable, TWF has to use more actions to do it. For many builds, the loss of your BA is a steep price to pay.
This is why my comparison was between the two simplest forms I could think of; 1-handed and shield versus 2-one-handed weapons. I didn't want to cloud the argument with 'but GWM does this' and PAM does that' because, within the scope of my argument, they simply don't apply. It's way too easy to get into the weeds with a topic like this. I didn't include subclasses for that reason.
If a core mechanic doesn't work well, but suddenly it's fine with this specific weapon or subclass, then the problem has been smoothed over but not fixed.
Eating your bonus action is the worst part of TWF in my experience.
You're making a second attack. It's got to cost something.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
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)
Eating your bonus action is the worst part of TWF in my experience.
You're making a second attack. It's got to cost something.
No it doesn't. Baseline, assuming you hit... greatsword does 2d6+mod, and a pair of scimitars does... 2d6+mod. Why does the later also require your bonus action?
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.
Eating your bonus action is the worst part of TWF in my experience.
You're making a second attack. It's got to cost something.
No it doesn't. Baseline, assuming you hit... greatsword does 2d6+mod, and a pair of scimitars does... 2d6+mod. Why does the later also require your bonus action?
Because you're getting 2d6+2*mod if you have the TWF style, and even if you don't, you're making 2 attack rolls for the scimitars versus 1 attack roll for the greatsword, meaning there's a chance of dealing at least 1d6+mod damage as opposed to nothing.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Helpful rewriter of Japanese->English translation and delver into software codebases (she/e/they)
Because you're getting 2d6+2*mod if you have the TWF style, and even if you don't, you're making 2 attack rolls for the scimitars versus 1 attack roll for the greatsword, meaning there's a chance of dealing at least 1d6+mod damage as opposed to nothing.
Plus two chances to disrupt concentration if your target is maintaining a spell, two chances to use various features that trigger on a hit...
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
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)
Eating your bonus action is the worst part of TWF in my experience.
You're making a second attack. It's got to cost something.
No it doesn't. Baseline, assuming you hit... greatsword does 2d6+mod, and a pair of scimitars does... 2d6+mod. Why does the later also require your bonus action?
Because you're getting 2d6+2*mod if you have the TWF style, and even if you don't, you're making 2 attack rolls for the scimitars versus 1 attack roll for the greatsword, meaning there's a chance of dealing at least 1d6+mod damage as opposed to nothing.
That isn't what "baseline" means. You don't add specific class features when comparing baseline.
Also, they're statistically identical amounts of damage done. It is 2d6+mod vs 2d6+mod. One doesn't do more damage than the other they exactly identical. One costs your bonus action. The other doesn't.
If we want to deviate from baseline and compare apples to apples incorporating their BA and # hits involved. Let's compare PAM with Halberd to a DW with a pair of longswords. Now we got 1d10+1d4+2*mod vs 2d8+mod. Now they're both chewing up the BA but even with only a 16 stat mod we're looking at avg 14 vs 12. By 20 stat that's widened to 18 vs 14.
Dual Wielding is always worse when there is a choice to go 2 hander instead. And for sure the baseline option to dual wield if you could instead wield the likes of a greatsword is a bad choice. You're throwing out your BA for basically no reason.
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.
Eating your bonus action is the worst part of TWF in my experience.
You're making a second attack. It's got to cost something.
No it doesn't. Baseline, assuming you hit... greatsword does 2d6+mod, and a pair of scimitars does... 2d6+mod. Why does the later also require your bonus action?
With TWF you get 2*1D6+mod so you're doubling your Mod which is the whole point of the fighting style.
The +2 you get from Dueling isn't much...but when you multiply it by 4-5 attacks it adds up. This is one of the reasons why I like Barbarians with twin weapons...their Rage damage buff is added more times. If you get a damage buff from a party member on a 'per attack' basis that works too.
There is a desire for all things to be equal in D&D, as though effectively it shouldn't matter what weapons/armour/class you choose to play, you should always be dealing the same damage regardless.
I don't think this is a good basis for design. Things should be different.
Additional points about dual wielding that are being missed:
A rogue dual wielding gets a second opportunity to hit with a sneak attack, at the cost of their bonus action
If you use two weapons, you have a greater chance to hit and inflict any damage than someone who is using a single weapon, because you roll more attacks. The overall damage output may be lower on average, but fights are not composed of nothing but average rolls. Isn't that part of the reason we play dice based games?
More hits = more concentration checks
A bonus two weapon fighting attack can involve throwing a weapon
Two handed weapons are strength based. It makes sense that they deal more damage than light dexterity based weapons
Two handed weapons can only be used when you're not doing anything else with your offhand, such as grappling. The two weapon fighter still has use of their main hand weapon
If you want D&D to be a game that works like World of Warcraft, with damage meters being relevant, then I think you can play the game in a way that is more fun. It's simply not possible to balance combat in a game where one character is throwing fireballs and another is attacking with daggers, while a third dominate's someone's mind.
There is a desire for all things to be equal in D&D, as though effectively it shouldn't matter what weapons/armour/class you choose to play, you should always be dealing the same damage regardless.
I don't think this is a good basis for design. Things should be different.
Additional points about dual wielding that are being missed:
A rogue dual wielding gets a second opportunity to hit with a sneak attack, at the cost of their bonus action
If you use two weapons, you have a greater chance to hit and inflict any damage than someone who is using a single weapon, because you roll more attacks. The overall damage output may be lower on average, but fights are not composed of nothing but average rolls. Isn't that part of the reason we play dice based games?
More hits = more concentration checks
A bonus two weapon fighting attack can involve throwing a weapon
Two handed weapons are strength based. It makes sense that they deal more damage than light dexterity based weapons
Two handed weapons can only be used when you're not doing anything else with your offhand, such as grappling. The two weapon fighter still has use of their main hand weapon
If you want D&D to be a game that works like World of Warcraft, with damage meters being relevant, then I think you can play the game in a way that is more fun. It's simply not possible to balance combat in a game where one character is throwing fireballs and another is attacking with daggers, while a third dominate's someone's mind.
I don't think anyone is debating that 'things should be different.' I certainly am not which is why I haven't delved into the 'GWM/PAM/SS are OP!' argument here. Of COURSE things should be different. However, I also believe that there is a substantial number of players who take the numbers into account when building their characters, particularly when they're playing next to a min/maxed build. Sure, I can have just as much fun doing 10 damage a round as I can doing 20 a round but not everyone feels that way. The numbers obviously matter or else you would see more people with what might be considered weaker builds. How many posts do you see a week about 'maximum carnage in a round' versus 'I want to play a fairy clown Bard. How do I do that?' Do you REALLY think you can find 20 posts or more about the infamous 2-level Warlock dip because the player base is going more Emo? No...it's because 2 levels of warlock get you a pile of useful stuff and lots of players like having lots of useful stuff.
In my case, I'm going for the theme. I can cite a dozen movies and post hundreds of pictures showing fantasy and even sci-fi characters fighting with two weapons. If it's THAT common and it's not OP then I think it needs to be better represented with clearer and more consistent rules. I'm not asking that anyone else's favorite thing be messed with and I'm puzzled as to why so many people seem opposed to the idea. Was a large portion of the player-base abused by dual-wielding parents or bullies as children? Why is there this psychological breakdown when someone suggests something they think is an improvement?
Imagine if Ranger players had said that Beastmaster Ranger is fine as-is and doesn't need changing. I mean the feel of the subclass was there, right? You're a person who spends a lot of time in the wild and you have a pet. It's not broken so why fix it? What was that? Oh, yeah...the NUMBERS didn't add up and overall the way it was implemented was dumb by many player's interpretations. Imagine their ire when the Battlesmith Artificer came out and was BETTER at Beastmastering than the OG Beastmaster was.
As for the other points:
A Rogue has at least three other things to do with their Bonus Action at level 2 and up. If they're using their BA for an attack that means they missed with their main attack. No offense but that's a much higher investment than many other characters that don't have as many options for their BA. A Ranger (one of the two classes that can even get TWF), might need to cast or move Hunter's Mark. A Fighter might want to trigger Second Wind or...um...nope, that's it. The bog-standard Fighter can trigger Second Wind or take an additional attack of some kind with their Bonus Action. Seems to me like they might want to make that potential (and even likely) attack a good one, yes?
Your next three points are all true but they actually don't have any bearing on the topic. If you think that not carrying a shield for the +2AC in exchange for an extra D6 damage then that's fine for you. Others might feel differently. In fact, I'm pretty sure that they DO feel differently because we almost never see it in posted builds, portrayed in streamed games, or talked about on the Forums. If it's so great, why don't more people do it?
I'm not sure how the last two points are germane to the conversation. The second one doesn't really make much sense to me and the first one is trying to bring real life into a game with fantasy races and magic. You ever see the big guy get hit by the other big guy with the big weapon and remain standing? You ever see the assassin kill a huge guy with an icepick/dagger/whatever to the back of the skull? Is 'bigger weapons should do more damage than lighter ones' REALLY the hill you want to die on because I think I can line up a ton of Rogue players to disagree with you.
None of my suggestions is giving away anything for free. In the first three cases, you STILL have to take the Two-Weapon Fighting style in order to gain the benefits. This is an active choice that means that A) Many characters can't have because they don't GET Fighting Styles and B) You can't take any of the other Fighting Styles unless you're willing to jump through some hoops. The last suggestion involves taking a Feat which may not be allowed or even if it is it involves either a Racial restriction (since only V. Humans get a Feat out of the gate) or the sacrifice of an ASI which many classes can ill-afford.
I'm still scratching my head as to why this is even a thing. 5e has obviously had changes and improvements made to it since its release and even then some people STILL think that parts of it need work. I'm trying to see why so many people are willing to make empty arguments over this. It's like people who don't like Bards for whatever reason. Hey...nobody is forcing you to PLAY one.
'I don't think TWF needs to be changed.'
Do you play a character that indulges in TWF or better yet is built around it?
'Well...no...'
Then WHY DO YOU CARE? It's not like TWF is suddenly going to eclipse the field of battle, is it?
Eating your bonus action is the worst part of TWF in my experience.
You're making a second attack. It's got to cost something.
No it doesn't. Baseline, assuming you hit... greatsword does 2d6+mod, and a pair of scimitars does... 2d6+mod. Why does the later also require your bonus action?
Because you're getting 2d6+2*mod if you have the TWF style, and even if you don't, you're making 2 attack rolls for the scimitars versus 1 attack roll for the greatsword, meaning there's a chance of dealing at least 1d6+mod damage as opposed to nothing.
That isn't what "baseline" means. You don't add specific class features when comparing baseline.
Also, they're statistically identical amounts of damage done. It is 2d6+mod vs 2d6+mod. One doesn't do more damage than the other they exactly identical. One costs your bonus action. The other doesn't.
If we want to deviate from baseline and compare apples to apples incorporating their BA and # hits involved. Let's compare PAM with Halberd to a DW with a pair of longswords. Now we got 1d10+1d4+2*mod vs 2d8+mod. Now they're both chewing up the BA but even with only a 16 stat mod we're looking at avg 14 vs 12. By 20 stat that's widened to 18 vs 14.
Dual Wielding is always worse when there is a choice to go 2 hander instead. And for sure the baseline option to dual wield if you could instead wield the likes of a greatsword is a bad choice. You're throwing out your BA for basically no reason.
Two attacks means you're diversifying by spreading your eggs across multiple baskets. Perhaps you need more efficient damage dealing with multiple, weaker opponents. Maybe you're fighting a spellcaster and the additional chances of forcing a Constitution saving throw versus concentration are worth more. Or perhaps just giving yourself more opportunities to deal some damage instead of all-or-nothing.
Never mind that you're talking about the Strength versus Dexterity gap. The former has only one skill associated with it and is otherwise only really necessary when wearing heavier (and more expensive) armor. The latter, on the other hand, has three linked skills, improves initiative, is better suited to ranged combat, and can deliver comparable AC to heavier armors with a lower monetary investment.
People call it a "god stat" for a reason, mate. Characters are rarely equally good at both. A few points of chip damage here and there isn't worth getting all bent out of shape over.
A Rogue has at least three other things to do with their Bonus Action at level 2 and up. If they're using their BA for an attack that means they missed with their main attack. No offense but that's a much higher investment than many other characters that don't have as many options for their BA. A Ranger (one of the two classes that can even get TWF), might need to cast or move Hunter's Mark. A Fighter might want to trigger Second Wind or...um...nope, that's it. The bog-standard Fighter can trigger Second Wind or take an additional attack of some kind with their Bonus Action. Seems to me like they might want to make that potential (and even likely) attack a good one, yes?
So players with more options for bonus actions have tougher choices to make? OK
I don't see the problem with rogues not being able to do absolutely everything they want on every turn
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
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)
Imagine if Ranger players had said that Beastmaster Ranger is fine as-is and doesn't need changing. I mean the feel of the subclass was there, right? You're a person who spends a lot of time in the wild and you have a pet. It's not broken so why fix it? What was that? Oh, yeah...the NUMBERS didn't add up and overall the way it was implemented was dumb by many player's interpretations. Imagine their ire when the Battlesmith Artificer came out and was BETTER at Beastmastering than the OG Beastmaster was.
As for the other points:
A Rogue has at least three other things to do with their Bonus Action at level 2 and up. If they're using their BA for an attack that means they missed with their main attack. No offense but that's a much higher investment than many other characters that don't have as many options for their BA. A Ranger (one of the two classes that can even get TWF), might need to cast or move Hunter's Mark. A Fighter might want to trigger Second Wind or...um...nope, that's it. The bog-standard Fighter can trigger Second Wind or take an additional attack of some kind with their Bonus Action. Seems to me like they might want to make that potential (and even likely) attack a good one, yes?
Your next three points are all true but they actually don't have any bearing on the topic. If you think that not carrying a shield for the +2AC in exchange for an extra D6 damage then that's fine for you. Others might feel differently. In fact, I'm pretty sure that they DO feel differently because we almost never see it in posted builds, portrayed in streamed games, or talked about on the Forums. If it's so great, why don't more people do it?
I'm not sure how the last two points are germane to the conversation. The second one doesn't really make much sense to me and the first one is trying to bring real life into a game with fantasy races and magic. You ever see the big guy get hit by the other big guy with the big weapon and remain standing? You ever see the assassin kill a huge guy with an icepick/dagger/whatever to the back of the skull? Is 'bigger weapons should do more damage than lighter ones' REALLY the hill you want to die on because I think I can line up a ton of Rogue players to disagree with you.
None of my suggestions is giving away anything for free. In the first three cases, you STILL have to take the Two-Weapon Fighting style in order to gain the benefits. This is an active choice that means that A) Many characters can't have because they don't GET Fighting Styles and B) You can't take any of the other Fighting Styles unless you're willing to jump through some hoops. The last suggestion involves taking a Feat which may not be allowed or even if it is it involves either a Racial restriction (since only V. Humans get a Feat out of the gate) or the sacrifice of an ASI which many classes can ill-afford.
I'm still scratching my head as to why this is even a thing. 5e has obviously had changes and improvements made to it since its release and even then some people STILL think that parts of it need work. I'm trying to see why so many people are willing to make empty arguments over this. It's like people who don't like Bards for whatever reason. Hey...nobody is forcing you to PLAY one.
'I don't think TWF needs to be changed.'
Do you play a character that indulges in TWF or better yet is built around it?
'Well...no...'
Then WHY DO YOU CARE? It's not like TWF is suddenly going to eclipse the field of battle, is it?
Plenty of us ranger players, who have experience with the Beast Master, have no issue with it. It's important to remember that this iteration of the game, intentionally, wasn't designed with "crunch" in mind. Optimization simply wasn't a priority for the design team, so people who can't shake that mindset are projecting onto the game their expectations and poisoning the proverbial well. The Beast Master is more than capable of keeping up in the damage department. It's sustained damage over a long time, rather than burst damage, so it cannot go nova, but it's more than adequate. That said, I will also be the first to admit the class (and archetype) has some shortcomings. But that's true for all of them.
Moving on, you needn't be so defensive. Sanvael raised valid points. Strength and Dexterity are not equal statistics. They are linked to a different number of skills (1:3). Dexterity also impacts Initiative and is preferable for ranged combat, making that fighter more versatile. It's true, you can use TWF with an emphasis on Strength, but it isn't necessary. Unless you plan on using weapons that deal bludgeoning damage, there's no point.
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. Which 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.
Never mind how this also assumes there are no magic weapons. Those change the math even more, but they're also impractical to account for so we won't bother. Of course, we could also introduce optional rules from the DMG like Speed Factor as an Initiative variant. Now, those finesse and light weapons matter so much more; as do the heavy and two-handed ones.
People don't have a problem with expending their bonus action for an additional attack. If they did, Polearm Master wouldn't be as popular as it is. What these alleged players don't like is the illusion of feeling weaker because they're using a smaller weapon. There's something about the fantasy on the page that doesn't match what they have in their heads. It's silly, but that's people. The math checks out.
Choices need to have consequences or else the choices are meaningless. But dealing less damage isn't one of them.
"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?
"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 50. 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 +1 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.
"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.
This is a repost from the Mechanics Forum as I was told that that Forum is for rules as they are, not suggested homebrews and changes. I'll be deleting that one shortly and attempting to bring the conversation here.
Let’s Fix Dual Wielding
(Because Right Now It Sucks!)
Yes…it’s a clickbait title but unlike many of the corner-case arguments I see in the Mechanics section like whether or not a person can jump underwater, I firmly believe that dual-wielding (or two-weapon fighting) is broken enough to need a fix and popular enough to warrant one.
(Note: If you already understand how the mechanics of two-weapon fighting work, you can skip down to the ‘New Stuff’ section to save time)
Let’s begin with RAW: (From the PHB)
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. You don't add your ability modifier to the damage of the bonus attack unless that modifier is negative.
If either weapon has the thrown property, you can throw the weapon, instead of making a melee attack with it.
Pretty cut and dried. You will normally make your Attacks with your ‘main’ hand and gain any bonuses for determining to-hit and damage modifiers. If you’re holding two weapons and BOTH of them are light, then you can make an additional Attack with your off-hand weapon but that Attack receives no modifiers for damage unless those modifiers are negative.
But what if you really want those modifiers with your off-hand weapon? You’re in luck because of something that many Martial classes get called Fighting Styles. Not all classes have access to all Fighting Styles so the following is taken from the Fighter in the PHB:
Two-Weapon Fighting
When you engage in two-weapon fighting, you can add your ability modifier to the damage of the second attack.
Again, pretty cut and dried. With the two-weapon fighting Fighting Style, any attacks you make with your off-hand weapon can now use the same stat bonuses as your main weapon. Note that the other stipulations to two-weapon fighting (both weapons must be Light) still apply.
But what if you want to wield a weapon in one or both hands that aren’t Light? Well, we have that covered too. Step right up and join me in the Feat section of the PHB:
Dual Wielder
You master fighting with two weapons, gaining the following benefits:
With this Feat and the two-weapon Fighting Style, you can now wield any weapon in one hand that does NOT have the two-handed property. In other words, if you want to simulate a certain pseudo psychic dancer turned death machine from a certain space-western movie that I love and wield two Battle Axes, you can!
Now we come to the gist of the conversation: In many ways, fighting this way sucks according to the rules of 5e. Without the Dual Wielder Feat, you cannot use weapons other than light this way at all, and remember that Feats are an optional rule and some DMs don’t allow them. The other drawback is that you need a Fighting Style (which many classes don’t have) in order to do this and gain the stat modifiers for the off-hand weapon. Multiclassing is also optional and so the idea of simply taking a 1-level ‘dip’ into the Fighter class in order to gain the Fighting Style may not be an option either. This means that only TWO classes get access to the Two-Weapon Fighting Style and that’s Fighters and Rangers.
So…I can’t do the classic two-dagger rogue Assassin? Sure you can…but the second dagger will have no stat modifiers for damage. What about the Paladin? He gets Fighting Styles, doesn’t he? Yes, he does…but RAW he doesn’t have access to Two-Weapon Fighting. And now we begin to see the crux of the problem. Two-weapon fighting, as written, is something that sort of falls between the cracks of 5e.
“But, Darkaiser…do we really NEED something different than what we have?” I hear you cry. In my opinion, yes…yes we do. To me, D&D and gaming, in general, are all about bringing fantasies to life. Google ‘two-weapon fantasy movies’ and you’ll see more examples than you can shake a browser at. I WANT the option to do that. As long as what I’m asking for is not OP and it’s cool with the DM then I want to be able to do it. Fighting with two weapons is one of those things.
Maths
I put this in as a separate section because some players hate the topic and some of us love it and IMHO if you’re going to be talking numbers (which I am about to do) then you need to have a foundation of understanding to start from. The following will assume RAW with no multiclassing and no Feats.
A Fighter with an effective stat (that is, the stat that they’re using to generate their to-hit bonus) of 16 has a to-hit bonus of +3+Proficiency Bonus (or PB). For a level 1 character that’s 3+2=5 or +5 to hit. The heaviest weapon they can wield one-handed does 1D8 damage (Longsword, Battle Ax, Rapier, etc) so that’s a base of +5 to hit with 1D8 damage. If the character’s effective stat also adds a damage modifier (there are circumstances where this doesn’t happen but we’ll assume the character is leaning toward either Str or Dex and not trying to do both) then that damage modifier is the same as the to-hit modifier without the PB or +3. So, we have a level 1 Fighter with a single attack doing 1D8+3 damage with a +5 to hit. That’s our baseline.
If the same character wants to pick up a second weapon, they have to downgrade their main weapon to a Light one (typically 1D6). Now the same Fighter is attacking with (main hand) 1D6 with +5 to hit and +3 damage as well as 1D6 with no modifiers. Depending on LOTS of variables, I’m willing to bet that the additional attack, even without modifiers, will make up for the weapon downgrade so the character is wielding 2 weapons and doing roughly the same damage as before. What’s the problem?
There are two issues; AC and the fact that the single-weapon Fighter can do more damage in the long run. The Fighter wielding 2 weapons is basically keeping up with the character with 1 weapon that rolls a higher damage die...in the beginning levels. However, the Fighter with the free hand can carry a shield that adds +2 to their AC which is a distinct advantage. Also, the 2-weapon Fighter will be doing less damage due to a lack of damage modifiers to the off-hand attack that can sometimes be more impressive than the damage die itself. In theory, the two-weapon fighting style should counter this by granting the damage modifiers to that off-hand attack and it does…in theory.
The Fighter with the heavier weapon and the shield will always have one less attack than the 2-weapon fighter. They will also always have +2 AC. The 2-weapon fighter will also be constrained to weapons with the Light trait so nothing Heavy or 2-handed and the weapons will do 1D6 or less. Note that you CAN choose to carry a D8 weapon and simply forgo the damage bonuses for whatever off-hand weapon you take but now you're giving up the +2 AC and still not making up the difference in damage.
The following is the typical damage done by our two sample Fighters, one with a D8 weapon and one with 2 D6 weapons and the Two-Weapon Fighting style. I’m assuming the same stat bonuses (+3) for both:
Level Fighter (D8) Fighter with TWF (2*D6)
1-4 D8+3=4.5+3=7.5 2*(D6+3)=2(3.5) +6=13
5-10 2*(D8+3)=2*(4.5) +6=15 3*(D6+3)=3(3.5) +9=19.5
11-19 3*(D8+3)=3*(4.5) +9=22.5 4*(D6+3)=4*(3.5) +12=26
20 4*(D8+3)=4*(4.5) +12=30 5*D6+3=5*(3.5) +15=32.5
As you can see, this works pretty well for the 2-weapon Fighter. They have more damage consistently from start to finish. However, we haven’t taken into account all of the factors yet. Firstly, the single-weapon Fighter will have 2 higher AC compared to their two-weapon counterpart. This seems to be a fair tradeoff…more damage for less protection. But the single-weapon Fighter hasn’t taken a Fighting Style yet. They don’t NEED a Fighting Style to simply pick up a weapon and a shield. What if the first example Fighter took, say, the Dueling Fighting Style? Now they’re going to deliver +2 damage on every hit. This means 9.5 damage per turn from levels 1-4, 19 damage from 5-10, 28.5 from 11-19, and 38 damage at level 20.
As you can see, the second Fighter no longer has a damage advantage over his one-weapon comrade after level 4. So, in the long run, a 2-weapon Fighter will wind up doing LESS damage overall, as well as having LESS AC, than a simple ‘sword and board’ character. No offense, but this sucks. When the 2-handed fighter enjoyed a damage advantage over the 1-handed, you could justify the difference. It’s essentially the same thing as using a bigger weapon, doing more damage per hit, with no shield. You’re hitting harder but getting hit more often in return. This seems fair to me. But after looking at the whole issue, you can see that the 2-handed fighter has a significant disadvantage right out of the gate with the lower AC and it only gets worse as they fall behind in damage output.
New Stuff
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.
After more than two THOUSAND words I decided to put this out there for the masses to see and comment on.
I fix it in my games in 2 ways. 1. I split the difference, allowing the 'mainhand' weapon to be anything wieldable in one hand and the 'offhand' weapon to be any light weapon. 2. By offering a whole entire new default reaction people can use called Parry. It lets anyone wielding a weapon do a minor reduction in damage to an incoming attack against them as a reaction (d4+prof). Kicker is: If they have two weapons in hand, they can Riposte when they do this, allowing them to get a hit in with their light 'offhand' weapon in the same manner as TWF bonus action extra attack does.
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 make an addition to the Dual Wielder feat that merges your TWF attack into the Attack action. While not strictly raising your damage ceiling, it gives you back your bonus action which may be used for damage or utility.
Eating your bonus action is the worst part of TWF in my experience. Especially for classes like Ranger or Rogue which have multiple class/subclass-defining BA features, TWF just isn't worth giving those up. And the whole point is that you can make a flurry of blows in the same amount of time someone else could swing a huge axe.
My homebrew subclasses (full list here)
(Artificer) Swordmage | Glasswright | (Barbarian) Path of the Savage Embrace
(Bard) College of Dance | (Fighter) Warlord | Cannoneer
(Monk) Way of the Elements | (Ranger) Blade Dancer
(Rogue) DaggerMaster | Inquisitor | (Sorcerer) Riftwalker | Spellfist
(Warlock) The Swarm
But that's what things like Swashbuckler Rogue's Fancy Footwork or the Mobile feat are for - to allow a hit-hit and run without taking an opportunity attack. And for Rogues, the second melee weapon is there more as insurance you can land that 1 Sneak Attack.
Helpful rewriter of Japanese->English translation and delver into software codebases (she/e/they)
Swashbuckler and Mobile still have a huge advantage with no action disengages. And this goes beyond Cunning Action - nearly every rogue subclass has a special bonus action as well. Yes, it's fine that they need to pay a price for a better chance to land SA, but I'd argue that price is higher than other classes pay to get their features to work.
My main point though is everyone's concern about this tends to look at the damage of TWF vs two-handed weapons with the assumption that as long as they are roughly equal, TWF is fine. There's rarely any discussion that even if the damage is comparable, TWF has to use more actions to do it. For many builds, the loss of your BA is a steep price to pay.
My homebrew subclasses (full list here)
(Artificer) Swordmage | Glasswright | (Barbarian) Path of the Savage Embrace
(Bard) College of Dance | (Fighter) Warlord | Cannoneer
(Monk) Way of the Elements | (Ranger) Blade Dancer
(Rogue) DaggerMaster | Inquisitor | (Sorcerer) Riftwalker | Spellfist
(Warlock) The Swarm
I don't disagree with you that TWF does have the cost of eating your bonus action, although the comparison of damage dealt for each Fighting Style applies to classes that get Fighting Styles - many of which don't have features that would expect them to use a bonus action every turn, so they have less reason not to use the bonus action to attack. If you roll the TWF style bonus attack into the main Action, you're effectively giving them Extra Attack early, just at the cost of using less-damaging weapons.
Meanwhile, playing a Rogue is all about dealing the big damage while keeping your skin intact, about having to make split-second decisions on what of several possible bonus actions to take. Being caught in melee sucks, but you don't even need to be in melee to TWF - just throw 2 daggers! Now you don't need to Disengage! Or maybe you should just hide in the corner and attack with a crossbow, and then Hide again. In any case, I like how the limitations in the standard mechanics of the Rogue encourages you to play like a Rogue.
Helpful rewriter of Japanese->English translation and delver into software codebases (she/e/they)
This is why my comparison was between the two simplest forms I could think of; 1-handed and shield versus 2-one-handed weapons. I didn't want to cloud the argument with 'but GWM does this' and PAM does that' because, within the scope of my argument, they simply don't apply. It's way too easy to get into the weeds with a topic like this. I didn't include subclasses for that reason.
If a core mechanic doesn't work well, but suddenly it's fine with this specific weapon or subclass, then the problem has been smoothed over but not fixed.
You're making a second attack. It's got to cost something.
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)
No it doesn't. Baseline, assuming you hit... greatsword does 2d6+mod, and a pair of scimitars does... 2d6+mod. Why does the later also require your bonus action?
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.
Because you're getting 2d6+2*mod if you have the TWF style, and even if you don't, you're making 2 attack rolls for the scimitars versus 1 attack roll for the greatsword, meaning there's a chance of dealing at least 1d6+mod damage as opposed to nothing.
Helpful rewriter of Japanese->English translation and delver into software codebases (she/e/they)
Plus two chances to disrupt concentration if your target is maintaining a spell, two chances to use various features that trigger on a hit...
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)
That isn't what "baseline" means. You don't add specific class features when comparing baseline.
Also, they're statistically identical amounts of damage done. It is 2d6+mod vs 2d6+mod. One doesn't do more damage than the other they exactly identical. One costs your bonus action. The other doesn't.
If we want to deviate from baseline and compare apples to apples incorporating their BA and # hits involved. Let's compare PAM with Halberd to a DW with a pair of longswords. Now we got 1d10+1d4+2*mod vs 2d8+mod. Now they're both chewing up the BA but even with only a 16 stat mod we're looking at avg 14 vs 12. By 20 stat that's widened to 18 vs 14.
Dual Wielding is always worse when there is a choice to go 2 hander instead. And for sure the baseline option to dual wield if you could instead wield the likes of a greatsword is a bad choice. You're throwing out your BA for basically no reason.
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.
With TWF you get 2*1D6+mod so you're doubling your Mod which is the whole point of the fighting style.
The +2 you get from Dueling isn't much...but when you multiply it by 4-5 attacks it adds up. This is one of the reasons why I like Barbarians with twin weapons...their Rage damage buff is added more times. If you get a damage buff from a party member on a 'per attack' basis that works too.
There is a desire for all things to be equal in D&D, as though effectively it shouldn't matter what weapons/armour/class you choose to play, you should always be dealing the same damage regardless.
I don't think this is a good basis for design. Things should be different.
Additional points about dual wielding that are being missed:
If you want D&D to be a game that works like World of Warcraft, with damage meters being relevant, then I think you can play the game in a way that is more fun. It's simply not possible to balance combat in a game where one character is throwing fireballs and another is attacking with daggers, while a third dominate's someone's mind.
I don't think anyone is debating that 'things should be different.' I certainly am not which is why I haven't delved into the 'GWM/PAM/SS are OP!' argument here. Of COURSE things should be different. However, I also believe that there is a substantial number of players who take the numbers into account when building their characters, particularly when they're playing next to a min/maxed build. Sure, I can have just as much fun doing 10 damage a round as I can doing 20 a round but not everyone feels that way. The numbers obviously matter or else you would see more people with what might be considered weaker builds. How many posts do you see a week about 'maximum carnage in a round' versus 'I want to play a fairy clown Bard. How do I do that?' Do you REALLY think you can find 20 posts or more about the infamous 2-level Warlock dip because the player base is going more Emo? No...it's because 2 levels of warlock get you a pile of useful stuff and lots of players like having lots of useful stuff.
In my case, I'm going for the theme. I can cite a dozen movies and post hundreds of pictures showing fantasy and even sci-fi characters fighting with two weapons. If it's THAT common and it's not OP then I think it needs to be better represented with clearer and more consistent rules. I'm not asking that anyone else's favorite thing be messed with and I'm puzzled as to why so many people seem opposed to the idea. Was a large portion of the player-base abused by dual-wielding parents or bullies as children? Why is there this psychological breakdown when someone suggests something they think is an improvement?
Imagine if Ranger players had said that Beastmaster Ranger is fine as-is and doesn't need changing. I mean the feel of the subclass was there, right? You're a person who spends a lot of time in the wild and you have a pet. It's not broken so why fix it? What was that? Oh, yeah...the NUMBERS didn't add up and overall the way it was implemented was dumb by many player's interpretations. Imagine their ire when the Battlesmith Artificer came out and was BETTER at Beastmastering than the OG Beastmaster was.
As for the other points:
A Rogue has at least three other things to do with their Bonus Action at level 2 and up. If they're using their BA for an attack that means they missed with their main attack. No offense but that's a much higher investment than many other characters that don't have as many options for their BA. A Ranger (one of the two classes that can even get TWF), might need to cast or move Hunter's Mark. A Fighter might want to trigger Second Wind or...um...nope, that's it. The bog-standard Fighter can trigger Second Wind or take an additional attack of some kind with their Bonus Action. Seems to me like they might want to make that potential (and even likely) attack a good one, yes?
Your next three points are all true but they actually don't have any bearing on the topic. If you think that not carrying a shield for the +2AC in exchange for an extra D6 damage then that's fine for you. Others might feel differently. In fact, I'm pretty sure that they DO feel differently because we almost never see it in posted builds, portrayed in streamed games, or talked about on the Forums. If it's so great, why don't more people do it?
I'm not sure how the last two points are germane to the conversation. The second one doesn't really make much sense to me and the first one is trying to bring real life into a game with fantasy races and magic. You ever see the big guy get hit by the other big guy with the big weapon and remain standing? You ever see the assassin kill a huge guy with an icepick/dagger/whatever to the back of the skull? Is 'bigger weapons should do more damage than lighter ones' REALLY the hill you want to die on because I think I can line up a ton of Rogue players to disagree with you.
None of my suggestions is giving away anything for free. In the first three cases, you STILL have to take the Two-Weapon Fighting style in order to gain the benefits. This is an active choice that means that A) Many characters can't have because they don't GET Fighting Styles and B) You can't take any of the other Fighting Styles unless you're willing to jump through some hoops. The last suggestion involves taking a Feat which may not be allowed or even if it is it involves either a Racial restriction (since only V. Humans get a Feat out of the gate) or the sacrifice of an ASI which many classes can ill-afford.
I'm still scratching my head as to why this is even a thing. 5e has obviously had changes and improvements made to it since its release and even then some people STILL think that parts of it need work. I'm trying to see why so many people are willing to make empty arguments over this. It's like people who don't like Bards for whatever reason. Hey...nobody is forcing you to PLAY one.
'I don't think TWF needs to be changed.'
Do you play a character that indulges in TWF or better yet is built around it?
'Well...no...'
Then WHY DO YOU CARE? It's not like TWF is suddenly going to eclipse the field of battle, is it?
Two attacks means you're diversifying by spreading your eggs across multiple baskets. Perhaps you need more efficient damage dealing with multiple, weaker opponents. Maybe you're fighting a spellcaster and the additional chances of forcing a Constitution saving throw versus concentration are worth more. Or perhaps just giving yourself more opportunities to deal some damage instead of all-or-nothing.
Never mind that you're talking about the Strength versus Dexterity gap. The former has only one skill associated with it and is otherwise only really necessary when wearing heavier (and more expensive) armor. The latter, on the other hand, has three linked skills, improves initiative, is better suited to ranged combat, and can deliver comparable AC to heavier armors with a lower monetary investment.
People call it a "god stat" for a reason, mate. Characters are rarely equally good at both. A few points of chip damage here and there isn't worth getting all bent out of shape over.
So players with more options for bonus actions have tougher choices to make? OK
I don't see the problem with rogues not being able to do absolutely everything they want on every turn
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)
Plenty of us ranger players, who have experience with the Beast Master, have no issue with it. It's important to remember that this iteration of the game, intentionally, wasn't designed with "crunch" in mind. Optimization simply wasn't a priority for the design team, so people who can't shake that mindset are projecting onto the game their expectations and poisoning the proverbial well. The Beast Master is more than capable of keeping up in the damage department. It's sustained damage over a long time, rather than burst damage, so it cannot go nova, but it's more than adequate. That said, I will also be the first to admit the class (and archetype) has some shortcomings. But that's true for all of them.
Moving on, you needn't be so defensive. Sanvael raised valid points. Strength and Dexterity are not equal statistics. They are linked to a different number of skills (1:3). Dexterity also impacts Initiative and is preferable for ranged combat, making that fighter more versatile. It's true, you can use TWF with an emphasis on Strength, but it isn't necessary. Unless you plan on using weapons that deal bludgeoning damage, there's no point.
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. Which 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.
Never mind how this also assumes there are no magic weapons. Those change the math even more, but they're also impractical to account for so we won't bother. Of course, we could also introduce optional rules from the DMG like Speed Factor as an Initiative variant. Now, those finesse and light weapons matter so much more; as do the heavy and two-handed ones.
People don't have a problem with expending their bonus action for an additional attack. If they did, Polearm Master wouldn't be as popular as it is. What these alleged players don't like is the illusion of feeling weaker because they're using a smaller weapon. There's something about the fantasy on the page that doesn't match what they have in their heads. It's silly, but that's people. The math checks out.
Choices need to have consequences or else the choices are meaningless. But dealing less damage isn't one of them.
"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?
"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 50. 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 +1 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.
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.
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.