Not sure the math would have helped but sword (rapier) fighting was a “gentleman’s” activity as was education ( math, reading, writing, rhetoric, philosophy, theology and “natural science” ) so it may well be that it was just a coincidence as well.
Because at some point in time someone in the design room decided that making 2-weapon fighting of any kind anywhere close to the 'OMG GWM PAM!' was a bad idea. Light weapons (most of which are also finesse weapons) are designed for high-Dex fighting and IMHO Dex is way too powerful as it is. So, rather than make half the players on the planet Dex-based 2-weapon fighters, they nerfed the style (or rather gave it no buffs while buffing heavier weapons).
I started a thread about this last year and, despite being told that 'professional gamers had tried to fix it' (proof to me that it really NEEDS fixing), I was met with so much vitriol that I decided to leave it be. We have homebrew rules for 2-weapons fighting that we enjoy very much.
Because rapiers aren't light? I'll agree that the listed weight doesn't make sense, but I'd put that down to the person who wrote it not having first hand experience of a rapier. A good one is 52 inches long and will exhaust your arm if you hold it in a high guard for any length of time. Using two is difficult to do, which aligns well with needing to have the dual wielder feat to dual wield rapiers effectively. Mechanically, you should notice that there is a sort of categorical distinction between weapons which provide a d6 of damage and weapons which provide a d8 of damage. Light weapons are those that use d6s. Weapons that use d8s are heavier by convention. Did you ask why that convention exists? It's to limit damage per round. You won't break the game by giving PCs free use of d8 offhand weapons, but you will slightly move the damage curve. Probably it doesn't matter, but I'd suggest you shouldn't do it without knowing about the purpose you are trying to achieve by doing it...
Just to add a thought, but I've never thought of the light property as actually representing the weight of the weapon. I've always thought of it more like "light" and "heavy" attacks in a video game; in other words it doesn't really represent weight, it represents speed. After all, if weight were the only factor then there would be no need to include the light property in the game in the first place, as you could just specify under two-weapon fighting that any weapon of 2 lb. or less would qualify.
A dagger is unquestionably a light weapon because they're small, but they're also easy to attack with as they're designed for short thrusting attacks that can work even at very close range. A rapier by comparison is a long blade intended for more of a fencing-like fighting style, requiring a reasonable amount of room to manoeuvre in order to be most effective. While you might be able to attack very quickly with one at the ideal range, you can't assume you'll always be at that distance in D&D, so it makes sense to split the difference and assume it's not a light weapon (or not as light as the dagger or a shorter blade would be).
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
Because rapiers aren't light? I'll agree that the listed weight doesn't make sense, but I'd put that down to the person who wrote it not having first hand experience of a rapier. A good one is 52 inches long and will exhaust your arm if you hold it in a high guard for any length of time. Using two is difficult to do, which aligns well with needing to have the dual wielder feat to dual wield rapiers effectively. Mechanically, you should notice that there is a sort of categorical distinction between weapons which provide a d6 of damage and weapons which provide a d8 of damage. Light weapons are those that use d6s. Weapons that use d8s are heavier by convention. Did you ask why that convention exists? It's to limit damage per round. You won't break the game by giving PCs free use of d8 offhand weapons, but you will slightly move the damage curve. Probably it doesn't matter, but I'd suggest you shouldn't do it without knowing about the purpose you are trying to achieve by doing it...
Part of the problem is that, when you take straight numbers, the Rapier specifically and 2-handed fighting in general sucks compared to fighting with heavy weapons because of the Feats available. Polearm Master grants specific benefits like an additional (though less damaging) attack as a Bonus Action. In the hands of a Fighter this isn't a big deal unless he also has Great Weapon Master or is a Paladin and can cast Smite on the attack. Still, 2-weapon fighting has nothing comparable to boost damage and the additional off-hand attack doesn't make up the difference.
Part of the problem is that, when you take straight numbers, the Rapier specifically and 2-handed fighting in general sucks compared to fighting with heavy weapons because of the Feats available.
Rapier and shield is a perfectly competitive build. The problem is that two-weapon fighting is a trap option -- it's really good in tier 1, meh in tier 2, bad in tier 3.
Part of the problem is that, when you take straight numbers, the Rapier specifically and 2-handed fighting in general sucks compared to fighting with heavy weapons because of the Feats available.
Rapier and shield is a perfectly competitive build. The problem is that two-weapon fighting is a trap option -- it's really good in tier 1, meh in tier 2, bad in tier 3.
Agreed...which is why I tried to suggest ways to fix it. But the community at large is kinda down on 'cool stuff actually working' so I was shouted down.
Part of the problem is that, when you take straight numbers, the Rapier specifically and 2-handed fighting in general sucks compared to fighting with heavy weapons because of the Feats available.
Rapier and shield is a perfectly competitive build. The problem is that two-weapon fighting is a trap option -- it's really good in tier 1, meh in tier 2, bad in tier 3.
Agreed...which is why I tried to suggest ways to fix it. But the community at large is kinda down on 'cool stuff actually working' so I was shouted down.
Probably has less to do with your attempt at fixing the disparity and more to do with your solution not being satisfying.
I think it is because D&D doesn't really have weapons, it just has sticks with damage numbers on the end. :-)
More seriously, the damage numbers don't really relate to the weapon's name, and some of the names are just plain wrong (what 5E calls a "scimitar" is more like a machete, parang or kukri).
There are a few oddities, but generally: Light weapons do 1d4 damage, one-handed weapons do 1d6 damage, versatile weapons do 1d6/1d8 damage, and two-handed weapons do 1d8 damage. Martial weapons do the next die size up. Thrown weapons do the next die size down.
You could do away with all the weapon tables in the books and just list weapons as size + skill + type. For example, a long sword is versatile, martial, slashing. You could also call it an arming sword, a tulwar, a sabre, a scimitar, or one of lots of other names, but all that you need is versatile, martial, slashing.
Part of the problem is that, when you take straight numbers, the Rapier specifically and 2-handed fighting in general sucks compared to fighting with heavy weapons because of the Feats available.
Rapier and shield is a perfectly competitive build. The problem is that two-weapon fighting is a trap option -- it's really good in tier 1, meh in tier 2, bad in tier 3.
Agreed...which is why I tried to suggest ways to fix it. But the community at large is kinda down on 'cool stuff actually working' so I was shouted down.
Probably has less to do with your attempt at fixing the disparity and more to do with your solution not being satisfying.
Satisfying to WHO is the point. My idea was mechanically simple (because the game is complex enough) and gave the 2-weapon fighter a bonus but not as much as the GWM or PAM Feats to not stray into OP territory. Honestly, I was surprised that so many people simply said 'Eh...if you don't like it don't play one.' or 'It doesn't need fixing.'
Honestly, the only problem with Two-Weapon Fighting is that it requires both a feat and a fighting style to make it worth the investment. I think if you just let the fighting style add the detail that only one of the weapons you're holding has to be light it would fix it, and more accurately reflect how dual-wielding actually works in real life scenarios (like wielding a rapier in one hand and a dagger in the other).
Honestly, the only problem with Two-Weapon Fighting is that it requires both a feat and a fighting style to make it worth the investment. I think if you just let the fighting style add the detail that only one of the weapons you're holding has to be light it would fix it, and more accurately reflect how dual-wielding actually works in real life scenarios (like wielding a rapier in one hand and a dagger in the other).
One of the biggest issues for me is the fact that there's no tradeoff with 2-weapon fighting versus the GWM Feat.
Example (I used V Human in all my math because once you introduce the races etc you wind up with countless permutations): At lvl 1 you take the Dual Wield Feat and (assuming Fighter) and the 2-weapon style. This means that you can do 3 more damage than a similar character with a different Feat and Style because anyone can fight off-handed, they just don't get the stat bonuses for damage for doing so. There's also the fact that the character with the Feat can use non-Light weapons (so more likely a D8 weapon) than the other (who is stuck at D6 or lower). So, for the cost of the Feat and the Fighting Style, the dedicated 2-weapon fighter gets an extra 3 points of damage (assuming a stat of 16) for the off-hand attack, an average of 1 more damage per attack (D8 weapon vs D6), and an additional +1 AC. All of this is great...at the early levels.
The second character (again, V Human) takes PAM and a 16 Str. They're swinging a Halberd or Glaive for 1D10 +3 damage with a bonus attack as a Bonus Action for 1D4 +3. Both of these can be made at a 10' reach. They do not gain the +1 AC that the 2-weapon fighter gets but they can take the Great Weapon fighting style which allows them to reroll damage rolls of 1 or 2 on their attacks which bumps their average damage up a few points.
Damage-wise the two are very close. The 2-weapon fighter has 2 attacks with D8+3 weapons for 15 if they hit both times and +1 AC. The polearm fighter has 2 attacks, one at a D10+3 and one at a D4+3 for 14 damage average if they hit with both (I counted the D10 reroll as an average damage 6 instead of 5.5). So, the two are very close with the 2-weapon fighter having a +1 AC as their main benefit.
The problem is that the heavy weapon fighter can stack GWM on their character while the 2-weapon fighter cannot. This adds +10 damage as well as an additional attack if they defeat their target once per turn. Not only does this add a potential 20 damage to the polearm fighter, but it also adds a possible attack for even MORE damage.
2-handed characters can take a different Feat than the other character such as Defensive Duelist for more AC to balance the two but there are no damage bonus options for them. Some classes and subclasses benefit more (Rangers with Hunter's Mark get extra damage per attack that hits and Paladins can use Smite on a per-attack basis) but there they're trading off having fewer ASI options and thus fewer chances to take a Feat. They also don't get the 3rd attack at level 11 that Fighters do.
The thing that REALLY bothered me was that I was told flat-out that 'professional gamers' had tried to fix this problem and failed. To me, this means that there IS a problem and the solution is going to be harder than 'more damage.'
One of the biggest issues for me is the fact that there's no tradeoff with 2-weapon fighting versus the GWM Feat.
GWM is also poor game design that is a patch around great weapon fighting also being bad. Absent feats, in tier 2 or higher you should be using rapier and shield.
I think the problem there is less that "Two-Weapon Fighting is underpowered" and more "Great Weapon Fighting is Overpowered"... or I suppose more accurately, the Great Weapon Master is overpowered. The -5 to hit just isn't as big of a hinderance as it's meant to be. I think there's definitely a discussion to be had about power creep... if one combo is very easy to pull off and drastically shifts the power one direction, is the solution to ban that ability, or shift all the other options up to keep up with it? Should every potential weapon combo get its own feat for a -5 to hit and a +10 to damage just to keep up?
If you ignore the fact that there's an unbalanced playstyle that requires 2 feats that clearly outclasses two-weapon fighting and just focus on core gameplay, two-weapon fighting holds up much better. Getting an additional attack each turn is a major addition... it's a good enough feature that it's a core feature of Monk gameplay... but even for a monk doing more than a single, fairly weak attack as a bonus action requires spending a class resource.
If you ignore the fact that there's an unbalanced playstyle that requires 2 feats that clearly outclasses two-weapon fighting and just focus on core gameplay, two-weapon fighting holds up much better. Getting an additional attack each turn is a major addition... it's a good enough feature that it's a core feature of Monk gameplay... but even for a monk doing more than a single, fairly weak attack as a bonus action requires spending a class resource.
Let's model a fighter with no feats. Over the course of a short rest, a reasonable estimate of attacks you actually get
I think we are zero-ing in on the problem with TWF. So here's what I think someone would want from TWF... willingly foregoing the versatility of a free hand, whether it's for spellcasting, holding a shield, or even just grappling in order to output more damage. However, if you're going to willingly occupy both hands in combat, you're better off just going for Two-Handed Weapons. However, every Two-Handed Melee weapon lacks the finesse property, so your only choice for that is to take a STR build. I think that's not a bad compromise... STR is less versatile than DEX, and going for this build more or less represents prioritizing output of damage over other features (such as AC, Initiative, DEX saves).
So the fact that TWF underperforms compared to focusing on being a Great Weapon Fighter isn't necessarily a failure of TWF... it's just kind of how the game balances out. The problem is that taking TWF requires you to wield two Light Weapons, and the only way to improve your damage die is to take a feat for it. At that point the only value of TWF is for classes or subclasses that can tack on features to a successful attack roll... if all you're really trying to do is land a Sneak Attack, the fact that the weapon that triggers that damage only deals an additional d6 of damage isn't really a problem.
Then we run into the real problem... the Dueling fighting style makes going sword-and-board about as reliable for outputting damage as TWF. That's why I think the simplest solution is to let the TWF fighting style use non-light weapons... I know that, mathematically, it's probably still not going to perform as well as other options, but I feel that small change shifts the fighting style enough so that it doesn't feel like it fails to accomplish the main thing it seems designed to do. That's my big complaint about it... to perform reliably as a fighting style, you need not only the Fighting Style class feature to make it reliable to hit, you also need a feat to have it reliably output more damage than just using a single weapon.
If it is the same target, say, a BBEG, then you only need it the once.
Melee rangers are not going to go six rounds without losing concentration.
They are not likely soloing the enemy. The enemy could focus on them, I suppose but then it is not hitting anyone else. Or the enemy could just hit randomly, in which case it is fighting stupidly. I suppose it could have point blank AE damage, but then the party is likely better to range fight, if they can.
It's not hitting anyone else for one round, then he's unconscious and time to proceed to the next target. A boss that lasts for six rounds in melee has a CR of twice the party's level or so.
I think the point still stands that Two Weapon Fighting is most useful in situations where a player can tack on something extra to their individual weapon attacks. I think Hunter's Mark is a good case for both the strength of TWF and its weakness... getting that extra d6 of damage for a Dexterous character is pretty nice, especially when you're getting an additional attack each round. A Ranger with Two-Weapon Fighting attacking a target whose been Hunters Marked using a shortsword is outputting damage equivalent to a greatsword, with one more attack per round. But that's also the problem with TWF... you've still gotta manage your Bonus Action. You spent at least one round Marking that enemy, and they only stay Marked as long as you keep up concentration. If you lose concentration, or even if you kill the guy you're fighting you need to spend your Bonus Action moving the Mark to the next guy. Meanwhile, if you had just grabbed a Longsword instead you could have held onto it two-handed when you hit, and maybe you don't get that bonus action attack every round but at least your BA is free to do other things.
Not sure the math would have helped but sword (rapier) fighting was a “gentleman’s” activity as was education ( math, reading, writing, rhetoric, philosophy, theology and “natural science” ) so it may well be that it was just a coincidence as well.
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
Because at some point in time someone in the design room decided that making 2-weapon fighting of any kind anywhere close to the 'OMG GWM PAM!' was a bad idea. Light weapons (most of which are also finesse weapons) are designed for high-Dex fighting and IMHO Dex is way too powerful as it is. So, rather than make half the players on the planet Dex-based 2-weapon fighters, they nerfed the style (or rather gave it no buffs while buffing heavier weapons).
I started a thread about this last year and, despite being told that 'professional gamers had tried to fix it' (proof to me that it really NEEDS fixing), I was met with so much vitriol that I decided to leave it be. We have homebrew rules for 2-weapons fighting that we enjoy very much.
Because rapiers aren't light? I'll agree that the listed weight doesn't make sense, but I'd put that down to the person who wrote it not having first hand experience of a rapier. A good one is 52 inches long and will exhaust your arm if you hold it in a high guard for any length of time. Using two is difficult to do, which aligns well with needing to have the dual wielder feat to dual wield rapiers effectively. Mechanically, you should notice that there is a sort of categorical distinction between weapons which provide a d6 of damage and weapons which provide a d8 of damage. Light weapons are those that use d6s. Weapons that use d8s are heavier by convention. Did you ask why that convention exists? It's to limit damage per round. You won't break the game by giving PCs free use of d8 offhand weapons, but you will slightly move the damage curve. Probably it doesn't matter, but I'd suggest you shouldn't do it without knowing about the purpose you are trying to achieve by doing it...
Just to add a thought, but I've never thought of the light property as actually representing the weight of the weapon. I've always thought of it more like "light" and "heavy" attacks in a video game; in other words it doesn't really represent weight, it represents speed. After all, if weight were the only factor then there would be no need to include the light property in the game in the first place, as you could just specify under two-weapon fighting that any weapon of 2 lb. or less would qualify.
A dagger is unquestionably a light weapon because they're small, but they're also easy to attack with as they're designed for short thrusting attacks that can work even at very close range. A rapier by comparison is a long blade intended for more of a fencing-like fighting style, requiring a reasonable amount of room to manoeuvre in order to be most effective. While you might be able to attack very quickly with one at the ideal range, you can't assume you'll always be at that distance in D&D, so it makes sense to split the difference and assume it's not a light weapon (or not as light as the dagger or a shorter blade would be).
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
Part of the problem is that, when you take straight numbers, the Rapier specifically and 2-handed fighting in general sucks compared to fighting with heavy weapons because of the Feats available. Polearm Master grants specific benefits like an additional (though less damaging) attack as a Bonus Action. In the hands of a Fighter this isn't a big deal unless he also has Great Weapon Master or is a Paladin and can cast Smite on the attack. Still, 2-weapon fighting has nothing comparable to boost damage and the additional off-hand attack doesn't make up the difference.
Rapier and shield is a perfectly competitive build. The problem is that two-weapon fighting is a trap option -- it's really good in tier 1, meh in tier 2, bad in tier 3.
Agreed...which is why I tried to suggest ways to fix it. But the community at large is kinda down on 'cool stuff actually working' so I was shouted down.
Probably has less to do with your attempt at fixing the disparity and more to do with your solution not being satisfying.
I think it is because D&D doesn't really have weapons, it just has sticks with damage numbers on the end. :-)
More seriously, the damage numbers don't really relate to the weapon's name, and some of the names are just plain wrong (what 5E calls a "scimitar" is more like a machete, parang or kukri).
There are a few oddities, but generally:
Light weapons do 1d4 damage, one-handed weapons do 1d6 damage, versatile weapons do 1d6/1d8 damage, and two-handed weapons do 1d8 damage.
Martial weapons do the next die size up.
Thrown weapons do the next die size down.
You could do away with all the weapon tables in the books and just list weapons as size + skill + type. For example, a long sword is versatile, martial, slashing. You could also call it an arming sword, a tulwar, a sabre, a scimitar, or one of lots of other names, but all that you need is versatile, martial, slashing.
https://vktortoise.blogspot.com/2017/08/d-5e-weapon-analysis.html
Satisfying to WHO is the point. My idea was mechanically simple (because the game is complex enough) and gave the 2-weapon fighter a bonus but not as much as the GWM or PAM Feats to not stray into OP territory. Honestly, I was surprised that so many people simply said 'Eh...if you don't like it don't play one.' or 'It doesn't need fixing.'
Honestly, the only problem with Two-Weapon Fighting is that it requires both a feat and a fighting style to make it worth the investment. I think if you just let the fighting style add the detail that only one of the weapons you're holding has to be light it would fix it, and more accurately reflect how dual-wielding actually works in real life scenarios (like wielding a rapier in one hand and a dagger in the other).
Watch Crits for Breakfast, an adults-only RP-Heavy Roll20 Livestream at twitch.tv/afterdisbooty
And now you too can play with the amazing art and assets we use in Roll20 for our campaign at Hazel's Emporium
One of the biggest issues for me is the fact that there's no tradeoff with 2-weapon fighting versus the GWM Feat.
Example (I used V Human in all my math because once you introduce the races etc you wind up with countless permutations): At lvl 1 you take the Dual Wield Feat and (assuming Fighter) and the 2-weapon style. This means that you can do 3 more damage than a similar character with a different Feat and Style because anyone can fight off-handed, they just don't get the stat bonuses for damage for doing so. There's also the fact that the character with the Feat can use non-Light weapons (so more likely a D8 weapon) than the other (who is stuck at D6 or lower). So, for the cost of the Feat and the Fighting Style, the dedicated 2-weapon fighter gets an extra 3 points of damage (assuming a stat of 16) for the off-hand attack, an average of 1 more damage per attack (D8 weapon vs D6), and an additional +1 AC. All of this is great...at the early levels.
The second character (again, V Human) takes PAM and a 16 Str. They're swinging a Halberd or Glaive for 1D10 +3 damage with a bonus attack as a Bonus Action for 1D4 +3. Both of these can be made at a 10' reach. They do not gain the +1 AC that the 2-weapon fighter gets but they can take the Great Weapon fighting style which allows them to reroll damage rolls of 1 or 2 on their attacks which bumps their average damage up a few points.
Damage-wise the two are very close. The 2-weapon fighter has 2 attacks with D8+3 weapons for 15 if they hit both times and +1 AC. The polearm fighter has 2 attacks, one at a D10+3 and one at a D4+3 for 14 damage average if they hit with both (I counted the D10 reroll as an average damage 6 instead of 5.5). So, the two are very close with the 2-weapon fighter having a +1 AC as their main benefit.
The problem is that the heavy weapon fighter can stack GWM on their character while the 2-weapon fighter cannot. This adds +10 damage as well as an additional attack if they defeat their target once per turn. Not only does this add a potential 20 damage to the polearm fighter, but it also adds a possible attack for even MORE damage.
2-handed characters can take a different Feat than the other character such as Defensive Duelist for more AC to balance the two but there are no damage bonus options for them. Some classes and subclasses benefit more (Rangers with Hunter's Mark get extra damage per attack that hits and Paladins can use Smite on a per-attack basis) but there they're trading off having fewer ASI options and thus fewer chances to take a Feat. They also don't get the 3rd attack at level 11 that Fighters do.
The thing that REALLY bothered me was that I was told flat-out that 'professional gamers' had tried to fix this problem and failed. To me, this means that there IS a problem and the solution is going to be harder than 'more damage.'
No, the core problem with two-weapon fighting is that it doesn't scale; it's one attack, regardless of level, and it costs your bonus action.
GWM is also poor game design that is a patch around great weapon fighting also being bad. Absent feats, in tier 2 or higher you should be using rapier and shield.
I think the problem there is less that "Two-Weapon Fighting is underpowered" and more "Great Weapon Fighting is Overpowered"... or I suppose more accurately, the Great Weapon Master is overpowered. The -5 to hit just isn't as big of a hinderance as it's meant to be. I think there's definitely a discussion to be had about power creep... if one combo is very easy to pull off and drastically shifts the power one direction, is the solution to ban that ability, or shift all the other options up to keep up with it? Should every potential weapon combo get its own feat for a -5 to hit and a +10 to damage just to keep up?
If you ignore the fact that there's an unbalanced playstyle that requires 2 feats that clearly outclasses two-weapon fighting and just focus on core gameplay, two-weapon fighting holds up much better. Getting an additional attack each turn is a major addition... it's a good enough feature that it's a core feature of Monk gameplay... but even for a monk doing more than a single, fairly weak attack as a bonus action requires spending a class resource.
Watch Crits for Breakfast, an adults-only RP-Heavy Roll20 Livestream at twitch.tv/afterdisbooty
And now you too can play with the amazing art and assets we use in Roll20 for our campaign at Hazel's Emporium
Let's model a fighter with no feats. Over the course of a short rest, a reasonable estimate of attacks you actually get
In tier 1, that means 8 main weapon attacks, 5 offhand weapon attacks; assuming an 18 stat (which favors 2WF), this gives us, for each fighting style
Looks solid. Now let's go to tier 2, and call it a 20 stat. We are now getting 15 main weapon attacks, so we are at
There is now no reason to use two weapon fighting.
I think we are zero-ing in on the problem with TWF. So here's what I think someone would want from TWF... willingly foregoing the versatility of a free hand, whether it's for spellcasting, holding a shield, or even just grappling in order to output more damage. However, if you're going to willingly occupy both hands in combat, you're better off just going for Two-Handed Weapons. However, every Two-Handed Melee weapon lacks the finesse property, so your only choice for that is to take a STR build. I think that's not a bad compromise... STR is less versatile than DEX, and going for this build more or less represents prioritizing output of damage over other features (such as AC, Initiative, DEX saves).
So the fact that TWF underperforms compared to focusing on being a Great Weapon Fighter isn't necessarily a failure of TWF... it's just kind of how the game balances out. The problem is that taking TWF requires you to wield two Light Weapons, and the only way to improve your damage die is to take a feat for it. At that point the only value of TWF is for classes or subclasses that can tack on features to a successful attack roll... if all you're really trying to do is land a Sneak Attack, the fact that the weapon that triggers that damage only deals an additional d6 of damage isn't really a problem.
Then we run into the real problem... the Dueling fighting style makes going sword-and-board about as reliable for outputting damage as TWF. That's why I think the simplest solution is to let the TWF fighting style use non-light weapons... I know that, mathematically, it's probably still not going to perform as well as other options, but I feel that small change shifts the fighting style enough so that it doesn't feel like it fails to accomplish the main thing it seems designed to do. That's my big complaint about it... to perform reliably as a fighting style, you need not only the Fighting Style class feature to make it reliable to hit, you also need a feat to have it reliably output more damage than just using a single weapon.
Watch Crits for Breakfast, an adults-only RP-Heavy Roll20 Livestream at twitch.tv/afterdisbooty
And now you too can play with the amazing art and assets we use in Roll20 for our campaign at Hazel's Emporium
If the purpose is hunter's mark, you're going to be using it 2-3 times.
Melee rangers are not going to go six rounds without losing concentration.
It's not hitting anyone else for one round, then he's unconscious and time to proceed to the next target. A boss that lasts for six rounds in melee has a CR of twice the party's level or so.
I think the point still stands that Two Weapon Fighting is most useful in situations where a player can tack on something extra to their individual weapon attacks. I think Hunter's Mark is a good case for both the strength of TWF and its weakness... getting that extra d6 of damage for a Dexterous character is pretty nice, especially when you're getting an additional attack each round. A Ranger with Two-Weapon Fighting attacking a target whose been Hunters Marked using a shortsword is outputting damage equivalent to a greatsword, with one more attack per round. But that's also the problem with TWF... you've still gotta manage your Bonus Action. You spent at least one round Marking that enemy, and they only stay Marked as long as you keep up concentration. If you lose concentration, or even if you kill the guy you're fighting you need to spend your Bonus Action moving the Mark to the next guy. Meanwhile, if you had just grabbed a Longsword instead you could have held onto it two-handed when you hit, and maybe you don't get that bonus action attack every round but at least your BA is free to do other things.
Watch Crits for Breakfast, an adults-only RP-Heavy Roll20 Livestream at twitch.tv/afterdisbooty
And now you too can play with the amazing art and assets we use in Roll20 for our campaign at Hazel's Emporium