Most players of 5e will agree that dual-wielding is inherently suboptimal, which is to say it's just straight up worse than other options for most characters. But dual-wielding as a concept can be pretty awesome. So I've written this mini-guide for players who agree with the previous statement, and want to make a dual-wielding character.
The Rules:
"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."
- PHB, pg. 195
The Dual Wielder feat allows the use of non-light weapons in dual-wielding, and gives a +1 to AC while wielding two weapons.
But the important thing is that Two-Weapon Fighting uses your bonus action, meaning there are many features, spells, and abilities you cannot use in combination with Two-Weapon Fighting on a single turn, which is the main reason why it is generally considered sub-optimal. This mini-guide mainly focuses on this when considering whether a class or archetype is optimal for dual-wielding.
The other thing to consider (for spellcasters) is that if you don't have Warcaster and a weapon useable as a spellcasting focus, you'll need to drop one of those weapons and grab a focus any time you cast a spell with material components. Depending on your DM, you may have to drop it even for somatic components.
Rating Key:
Red: Bad. Unless you've got a very specific idea for how to work around what a bad choice this is, it will stink. Either way, it's most likely going to be less powerful than not doing it.
Purple: Depends on the circumstances, but to the extent that there may often be times where this is a bad idea. Doesn't necessarily imply a lack of power potential. Purple can also mean that the character works as a dual-wielder, but has to sacrifice use of many important class features to do so.
Black: Average. Not really remarkable, and certainly something you can work with without missing out on a lot of other things.
Blue: Good. Within the context of the choice, this is a good idea.
Light Blue: This is probably the most optimal thing you can do, within the context of the choice.
These ratings are just my opinion, based mainly on my personal experiences with playing dual-wielders and dealing with "too many" bonus action options.
For Single-class builds:
Barbarians:Need their bonus action on the first turn of most combats to rage. In addition, dual-wielding Barbarians don't benefit from what some would argue to be the best feat for a Barbarian: Great Weapon Master. Reckless Attack and Rage damage are the only things really helping here, but they do help a lot. Just don't make a Berserker.
Bard: Sword Bards make pretty good dual-wielders since they get the fighting style and can add their Bardic Inspiration dice to their attacks. Anything else either probably shouldn't be in melee or gets too many bonus action features to be optimal. Bards can also use their weapons as spellcasting focuses. If you want to play a spell-casting dual-wielder, Swords Bard with Warcaster would be a pretty good choice.
Clerics: Need their bonus action to cast the spells like Healing Word or Shield of Faith, that, arguably, would be the reason why the melee character would be a Cleric, instead of, say, a Paladin. Plus, you will have to drop that sword to cast quite a few of your spells.
Druid: Same as Cleric, with the added disadvantage of not being proficient with heavy armor and not being allowed metal armor. If you want to play a melee Druid, turn into a Grizzly Bear and "dual-wield" your claws.
Fighter: Already get more attacks than anyone else at the higher levels, with Action Surge granting them even more but not another bonus action. Cavalier and Eldritch Knight already get bonus action attacks at certain levels, Samurai needs the bonus action for its main feature, Battlemaster doesn't really need an extra chance to hit, with Precision Strike and (taking a bonus action) Feinting Attack increasing accuracy. Champion may like dual-wielding if only for the extra chance to score a critical hit, but since that Champion is, as a dual-wielder, at most doing 2d8 damage with that crit, it's not as satisfying as most weapons would be.
Monk: Gets half of their damage and features attached to their bonus actions. Don't do this unless you have a specific magic item or concept you want to do. Niche builds like Dual-Wielder-feat-bearing monks can get a nice AC boost, especially Kensei.
Paladin: Uses their bonus actions for their smite spells. But if you just want more Divine Smites, this may be a decent option; 3 potential smites in 1 turn would seem to be worth it. Too bad you don't get the fighting style, though. With that in mind, this is purple for archetypes like the Vengeance Paladin who already have additional bonus action features, and just barely blue for Paladins who do not. Warcaster isn't necessary for your smites.
Ranger: While spells like Hunter's Mark could be useful against that one big enemy, the amount of bonus action spells and features that Rangers get make this a build only more useful for some then using some other bonus action ability. This would most likely be very bad when combined with Horizon Walker, Beastmaster, or Monster Slayer. Still decent because Gloomstalker or Hunter could likely make use of it.
Rogue (Not a Swashbuckler):This is pretty good, since Rogues normally only get one chance to hit per turn. Assassin especially can take advantage, so to speak, of this on their first turns in combat. But Cunning Action and that second attack can't be used together, so you'll have to plan on how your AC 14-17 rogue will stay out of too much trouble. Mobile could help. Don't combine this with a Mastermind or Inquisitive unless you have good reason. Would be blue, but when you're not playing a Swashbuckler, ranged attacking is almost always the better option for you, so you are sacrificing some real damage potential by playing, say, a Scout Dual-Wielder instead of a Scout Stealth Archer.
Rogue (Swashbuckler): I would argue that this is the best of all Dual-wielding choices. Fancy Footwork means that you no longer need to worry about staying out of trouble, and attacking an extra adjacent enemy means it's even more useful than it is for a single-weapon-holding Swashbuckler. Plus, you get that sneak attack damage even when no one is near your enemy! Amazing. This is my favorite choice for dual-wielders, and I would go so far as to say that a dual-wielding Swashbuckler is more optimal than a Swashbuckler who doesn't dual-wield, even if the latter of the two has a shield.
Sorcerer:If you're making a melee sorcerer, you're usually making a mistake anyways, but making a dual-wielding one is likely even worse. The only thing I can think of for this that would seem at all viable is a Draconic Origin (for natural armor) Sorcerer who...actually, almost any of these would probably be strictly worse than using Booming Blade and quickening it when necessary. And you do still have a d6 hit die. Warcaster won't save this choice.
Warlock: If you're playing a melee warlock, you're probably playing a Hexblade. That means you'll most likely be wanting to use Hexblade's Curse for your first bonus action, and regretfully forgoing any of the bonus action Invocations that involve that. But it's not a terrible idea, especially since you can have a Hexed blade in one hand and your Pact blade in the other, which a level 3 invocation lets you use as your spellcasting focus. Other Patrons' Warlocks need not apply. Warcaster will most likely help you quite a bit.
Wizard: Same as Sorcerer, except that Bladesinger, War Wizard, and Abjuration can give you a few useful features. But you still have d6 hit dice. Your Ward and/or AC boosts only help up until that one critical hit. Of course, like with Sorcerers, this is more of a problem with playing any Melee-focused Wizard, and not one really affected by dual-wielding. You can't use a weapon as a spellcasting focus, but you don't need it for everything.
Yes, I cheated a bit in this section. But overall, there aren't really that many optimal multiclass builds for your dual-wielder that wouldn't already be good multiclass builds to begin with. Of course, there are quite a few good multiclasses that just won't work for a dual-wielder, usually due to too many bonus action options. Barbarian/Rogue is a little better for dual wielders than for anyone else, though, I'd say.
I hope this mini-guide was helpful! I welcome any feedback and will certainly change ratings if given valid reason to do so.
I have found that Swashbucklers really need that bonus action to hit, then use their Cunning Action to Dash way out of the way while relying on Fancy Footwork to ignore the possibility of Opportunity Attacks. If they use their bonus action to attack and not kill kill their target they are a relatively squishy target that just put a lot of hurt on something within striking distance and face the possibility of more targets moving in to cut off their Sneak Attack next round.
I have found that Swashbucklers really need that bonus action to hit, then use their Cunning Action to Dash way out of the way while relying on Fancy Footwork to ignore the possibility of Opportunity Attacks. If they use their bonus action to attack and not kill kill their target they are a relatively squishy target that just put a lot of hurt on something within striking distance and face the possibility of more targets moving in to cut off their Sneak Attack next round.
While I agree with this when the Swashbuckler is alone, as long as the Swashbuckler has a tank of any sort to work with, being squishy doesn't matter all that much, in my experience. Certainly, if your Swashbuckler is the only melee fighter, you will run into problems sometimes. But that's something that, in a well-built party, should never happen. A swashbuckler is still a rogue, and a rogue is still a striker/glass cannon.
I guess I'm saying that I see this as a problem caused more by poor mechanical party dynamic?
When you are the only one facing one or more enemies in melee, you'll definitely want to use Cunning Action to get away. But this should be a rare occurrence, because you should have a tank to work with most of the time.
I would argue that the duel wielding Barbarian is both thematic (dual axes?) and good. If the feat is spent then the character has +1 AC and Barbarian Rage is triggered per attack not per Turn, so that +2 to +4 damage adds together quickly. Especially since with Savage Attacker this could be procing 3 times a turn consistently.
Aside from the Berzerker Barbarian I don't think the Barbarian actually utilizes their Bonus Actions much. 1) You aren't always going to be Raging and extra attacks and damage always help. 2) Rage only eats 1 Bonus Action every 1 minute, so the sacrifice isn't bad.
Clerics have the problem of basically, but not quite, requiring War Caster. Divine Strike only procs once a turn, so duel weilding really hegges your bets. A Cleric can free action put a weapon away and have a free hand for a Bonus Action spell and pull it back out next turn, they rarely have Reaction spells. So War Caster isn't required, but will make your action economy simpler. It removes the need to plan.
If Druid wants to be in melee, play Moon otherwise it's not going to go well. They don't get Extra Attack nor the melee cantrips.
Monks already get Martial Arts. Trying to dual wield is very niche.
Warlock, I don't see Hexblade's curse as the problem it's a *single* turn's action economy. Little is lost. My problem is that Warlocks have amazing ReAction spells to keep them going and a Hexblade only get CHA to attack/damage with a single weapon. The only weapon worth "dual wielding" is the double scimitar from Eberron.
If the Tank is within 5 feet of the Swashbuckler their sneak attack won't fire off meaning that to a certain degree the Swashbuckler has to be, by necessity, on their own. In addition unless the target is largely mindless the Swashbuckler will be a preferred target, churning out more pain with less armor.
If the Tank is within 5 feet of the Swashbuckler their sneak attack won't fire off meaning that to a certain degree the Swashbuckler has to be, by necessity, on their own. In addition unless the target is largely mindless the Swashbuckler will be a preferred target, churning out more pain with less armor.
From XGTE, pg. 47: "All other rules for Sneak Attack still apply to you."
This means that, though it requires some positioning, Sneak Attack is still obtainable for your Swashbuckler simply from having an ally within 5 feet of the enemy. So, while you can't get sneak attack damage if, say, you are between your tank and an enemy, you could use your first attack, even if it can't benefit from sneak attack damage, to allow you to move into a position where either you are next to no one except an enemy, or your enemy is next to your ally.
You can dart out, stab the enemy twice, then run back so they can't get to you without moving past the tank.
The latter is a valid point, but it really depends on your DM's idea of what a strategic move is for a specific creature. If you position your swashbuckler well, your enemies will have to provoke opportunity attacks from your tank (and, perhaps, other party members) in order to target you.
If your DM always has their creatures charge you over anyone in better armor, Swashbuckler is less useful, but maybe get your Fighter friend to take Sentinel?
I would argue that the duel wielding Barbarian is both thematic (dual axes?) and good. If the feat is spent then the character has +1 AC and Barbarian Rage is triggered per attack not per Turn, so that +2 to +4 damage adds together quickly. Especially since with Savage Attacker this could be procing 3 times a turn consistently.
Aside from the Berzerker Barbarian I don't think the Barbarian actually utilizes their Bonus Actions much. 1) You aren't always going to be Raging and extra attacks and damage always help. 2) Rage only eats 1 Bonus Action every 1 minute, so the sacrifice isn't bad.
I'm not really sure what you mean by "triggered per attack not per Turn" and the Savage Attacker bit. Could you please elaborate?
I agree with what you said about Barbarian, besides that. Depending on what you mean by the above, I'm thinking I may bring it up to blue.
Clerics have the problem of basically, but not quite, requiring War Caster. Divine Strike only triggers once a turn, so duel wielding really hedges your bets. A Cleric can free action put a weapon away and have a free hand for a Bonus Action spell and pull it back out next turn, they rarely have Reaction spells. So War Caster isn't required, but will make your action economy simpler. It removes the need to plan.
Unfortunately, you still need the free hand for any material components, even with War Caster. But Clerics do get a decent amount of spells that could be cast in the way you described. I'm not sure whether it should change the rating, though.
Warlock, I don't see Hexblade's curse as the problem it's a *single* turn's action economy. Little is lost. My problem is that Warlocks have amazing ReAction spells to keep them going and a Hexblade only get CHA to attack/damage with a single weapon.
Actually, Jeremy Crawford confirmed that Hexblades can use their Charisma to hit with both their "Hex Warrior" weapon and their summoned/magical pact weapon (though only their pact weapon can be a spellcasting focus when combined with the necessary invocation) here: https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/930235396792786944
I think Warlocks are still black, since only one subclass does anything for dual-wielding, and that second hexed blade won't get pact weapon benefits.
So for damage dealing abilities I've found there are generally two times. Proc 1/Turn: Sneak Attack, Divine Strike, Colossus Slayer, etc... Proc 1/Hit: Hexblade's Curse, Hex, Rage, Hunter's Mark, etc...
Any ability that Procs 1/Turn benefits from multiple attacks only in that each attack gives a chance that the player will hit and therefore the ability will proc. I think of it as "Burst Damage". Any ability that Procs 1/Hit benefits from multiple attacks in that every time an attack hits the damage procs. I think of it as "Consistent Damage"
Abilities like Reckless Attackincreases chance to hit by about +5 (lowers chance of 1s and increases crit chance), giving you more consistent hitting. Lets take 2 5th lvl Barbarians with +3 Str. Thud the Barbarian has a Great Axe and Great Weapon Master and is utilizing Reckless Attack. +3 (Proficiency) +3 (Str) +5 (Reckless Attack) -5 (Great Weapon Master) = average To Hit of +6. Has 2 attacks and any attacks that hit deal 2d6+3 (Great Axe+STR) +10 (Great Weapon Master) +2 (Rage). If Thud hits with 1 attack that's an average damage of 21, both attacks are 42! quite a lot.
Rothgar the Barbarian has twin axes and Dual Wielder and is utilizing Reckless Attack. +3 (Proficiency) +3 (Str) +5 (Reckless Attack) = average To Hit of +11. Has 3 attacks and any attacks that hit deal 1d8+3 (Battle Axe+STR) +2 (Rage) If Rothgar hits with 1 attack that's an average damage of 6-9 (6 is for the off hand attack, 9 for the two primaries), with all 3 attacks it's 24. Little better then Thud can in a single attack.
Lets take a look at them at lvl 1.
That said Rothgar is much more likely to hit any particular attack then Thud. I personally don't think either build is "better", it's all about the trades the player wants to make. Thud could get unlucky and roll 1s on all his damage dice, but even if Rothgar rolls all 1st he'll do more damage.
So for damage dealing abilities I've found there are generally two times. Proc 1/Turn: Sneak Attack, Divine Strike, Colossus Slayer, etc... Proc 1/Hit: Hexblade's Curse, Hex, Rage, Hunter's Mark, etc...
Any ability that Procs 1/Turn benefits from multiple attacks only in that each attack gives a chance that the player will hit and therefore the ability will proc. I think of it as "Burst Damage". Any ability that Procs 1/Hit benefits from multiple attacks in that every time an attack hits the damage procs. I think of it as "Consistent Damage"
Abilities like Savage Attack increases chance to hit by about +5 (lowers chance of 1s and increases crit chance), giving you more consistent hitting. Lets take 2 5th lvl Barbarians with +3 Str. Thud the Barbarian has a Great Axe and Great Weapon Master and is utilizing Savage Attacker. +3 (Proficiency) +3 (Str) +5 (Savage Attacker) -5 (Great Weapon Master) = average To Hit of +6. Has 2 attacks and any attacks that hit deal 2d6+3 (Great Axe+STR) +10 (Great Weapon Master) +2 (Rage). If Thud hits with 1 attack that's an average damage of 21, both attacks are 42! quite a lot.
Rothgar the Barbarian has twin axes and Dual Wielder and is utilizing Savage Attacker. +3 (Proficiency) +3 (Str) +5 (Savage Attacker) = average To Hit of +11. Has 3 attacks and any attacks that hit deal 1d8+3 (Battle Axe+STR) +2 (Rage) If Rothgar hits with 1 attack that's an average damage of 6-9 (6 is for the off hand attack, 9 for the two primaries), with all 3 attacks it's 24. Little better then Thud can in a single attack.
Lets take a look at them at lvl 1.
That said Rothgar is much more likely to hit any particular attack then Thud. I personally don't think either build is "better", it's all about the trades the player wants to make. Thud could get unlucky and roll 1s on all his damage dice, but even if Rothgar rolls all 1st he'll do more damage.
I believe you mean "Reckless Attack," not "Savage Attack." Just a minor thing.
If both barbarians are level 5, a CR 5 creature, will, per the DMG, have, on average, have an AC of 15.
Using this handy DPR calculator, courtesy of LudicSavant, I'll look at both Thud and Rothgar over a 2 round phase, so both can enter their rage and still get straight to their other bonus action features.
Thud will use his power attack on every attack (though most barbarian players don't do this, to be fair) and Reckless Attack every turn, so he has +1 to hit and advantage, and deals 1d12+3+2+10 (1d12+15) per hit. In total, he gets 4 attacks (with an additional if he gets a critical hit on his second turn), averaging about 79 damage over the 2 turns.
Rothgar makes 5 total attacks, Reckless Attack-ing on both turns so he has +6 to hit and advantage, dealing 1d8+3+2 (1d8+5) damage per hit. He'll average about 48 damage.
Now, with an enemy with a higher AC, Rothgar would start to surpass Thud's power attacking every turn, but it evens out because, going the other direction, Thud's average damage increases more significantly versus a lower AC than Rothgar's does. And if they both roll low on the damage dice, Thud's huge damage modifier means he'd still beat Rothgar in that area.
In conclusion, I feel like the only reason you'd make a barbarian dual-wielder (coolness aside) is that you want a slight AC boost (largely irrelevant when you recklessly attack) and a higher chance to get some hit-triggered ability to go off (which a barbarian doesn't have too many of). But it still seems, strictly speaking, worse than the heavy weapon-wielding barbarian whose massive damage from power attacks (which he doesn't have to use all the time) outweighs his occasionally smaller chance to hit. So black still seems fair, as it's what I've used for other choices that make decent dual-wielders, but are generally weaker than non-dual-wielding builds in that class (See Paladin and non-Swashbuckler Rogue as examples of that).
Unfortunately, you still need the free hand for any material components, even with War Caster. But Clerics do get a decent amount of spells that could be cast in the way you described. I'm not sure whether it should change the rating, though.
I don't think that's true.
Warcaster states: "You can perform the somatic components of spells even when you have weapons or a shield in one or both hands." Material Components states: "A spellcaster must have a hand free to access a spell's material components -- or to hold a spellcasting focus -- but it can be the same hand that he or she uses to perform somatic components."
I would believe that because Warcaster allows the caster to perform somatic components when you have your hands full, therefore that same full hand can use material components.
Paladins actually don't use their bonus action for smites. Smites are totally seperate from full or bonus actions. Which makes paladins top tier for this kind of build imo.
Read the post more closely, "smite spells". While Divine smite is free, basically all the smite spells require a bonus action, stack with Divine Smite, and have secondary effects such as knocking a target prone for adv. on all the rest of your attacks.
Edit: not to say dual-wielding paladins are bad, just that there is a reason to have a bonus action. BA smite spells often do less damage compared to dual-wielding smite, but often have other effects.
Also Improved Divine Smite is great on a dual-wielder.
Battlesmith and Artillerist are totally out, as both use their bonus action for pet/turret. Echo knight is out for obvious reasons - the echo uses the bonus action to spawn and swap position.
I suspect something like a melee-oriented cleric, (Tempest, eg) could work well, or well enough.
Lore bard could work OK too - since cutting words is reaction-based, it removes some of the competition for the bonus action between the extra attack and inspiration dice.
Echo Knight is further removed from being amble to utilize two weapon fighting as the Manifest Echo feature limits attacks the fighter can originate from the echo to attacks made specifically with its attack action. Two weapon fighting nor any feature that grants a bonus action attack would be useable with the echo even if the echo wasn’t immediately destroyed.
Although not the most damage without hunter's mark, duel wielding rangers do respectable damage with two short swords, all without the use of a spell slot or concentration. Hunter rangers are doing even better with either colossus slayer or horde breaker.
A level 6 ranger with a longbow (pretty common), +4 dexterity modifier, and hunter's mark is doing (1d8 + 4 + 1d6)*2 for 24 average damage.
A hunter ranger at the same level with two short swords, +4 dexterity modifier, and colossus slayer (and no spell slot or concentration used!) is doing ((1d6 + 4)*3 + 1d8) for 27 average damage.
A level 6 duel wielding fighter is doing (1d6 + 5)*3 for 25.5 average damage.
If there is just one BBEG target, the hunter ranger can take a slight dip in their turn one damage (26.5 on average) to setup hunter's mark for ((1d6 + 4 + 1d6)*3 + 1d8) for 37.5 average damage on turns 2 and onward, assuming they don't lose hunter's mark. But even if they do lose hunter's mark, they give up 0.5 average damage on turn one to gain 10.5 average damage on the following turn(s). Tasha's makes it even easier with favored foe. Any ranger can duel wield two short swords for ((1d6 + 4)*3 + 1d6) 26 average damage at level 6 and ((1d6 + 5)*3 + 1d6) 29 average damage at level 8, no spell slot required.
Also, much of the art of adventurers duel wielding are of them holding a sword in one hand and a dagger in the other. One thing a ranger losses when they duel wiled is the use of some of their great proprietary spells that use a ranged attack, like hail of thorns and lightning arrow. If they use a one handed sword and take the dueling fighting style they can still deal good damage from their attacks AND have access to throwing a dagger at a group of enemies for AoE damage.
I'd love to play a DW ranger, but between so many spells and features using the BA and the requirement to have a hand free to cast spells at all it just never works out. Yes, you can pick certain spells and take Warcaster etc, etc, but it feels like fighting the system to build an archetype that should already exist without so much work.
If Favored Foe was supposed to alleviate this, it missed the mark. The fact that it's once/turn removes the whole synergy of Hunter's Mark with multiple attacks in the first place.
Not to say Ranger is bad or DW is totally not viable. It's just not really better than say a DW Battlemaster, especially at later levels when Ranger is leaning more on its spells to keep up.
I would encourage you to look at the damage output of what you expect the ranger to "keep up with" and start from there and see what a ranger can do duel wielding to meet that number. Levels 2 through 10 the baseline ranger is going to meet or beat the other martial classes at duel wielding. The fighter really pulls ahead at level 11 and up. But that is what a fighter is supposed to do. If we start with the math and then work the class abilities backwards from there its less discouraging and usually successful. For example, a baseline fighter duel wielding short swords at level 10 is 25.5 average damage. That's not a difficult number for any ranger to hit, no matter what weapon combination they are using. Does a battle master do a little better than a baseline fighter? Sure! But a hunter does better than a baseline ranger.
Many of the spells a ranger would even want to use as a martial character are spells that require only a verbal component or only a verbal and material component with the material component being the weapon used.
I think the best thing they could have done (or do) for two weapon fighting is to remove the “when you take the attack action” bit. Meaning, anytime you are holding two light melee weapons and make an attack, you can make an attack with the other weapon as well. Meaning, AoO extra damage and such. So the damage would go up a bit situationally without being too powerful on your actual turn.
So I am intrigued to see if dual wielding can be rehabilitated somewhat using the new feats from Tasha's.
Slasher:
You’ve learned where to cut to have the greatest results, granting you the following benefits:
Increase your Strength or Dexterity by 1, to a maximum of 20. Once per turn when you hit a creature with an attack that deals slashing damage, you can reduce the speed of the target by 10 feet until the start of your next turn. When you score a critical hit that deals slashing damage to a creature, you grievously wound it. Until the start of your next turn, the target has disadvantage on all attack rolls.
Crusher:
You are practiced in the art of crushing your enemies, granting you the following benefits:
Increase your Strength or Constitution by 1, to a maximum of 20.
Once per turn, when you hit a creature with an attack that deals bludgeoning damage, you can move it 5 feet to an unoccupied space, provided the target is no more than one size larger than you.
When you score a critical hit that deals bludgeoning damage to a creature, attack rolls against that creature are made with advantage until the start of your next turn.
A fighter with both of these feats could be a pretty decent controlling tank without having to rely on consumable resources. Battlemaster is the obvious candidate, but rune knight could be fun too.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Most players of 5e will agree that dual-wielding is inherently suboptimal, which is to say it's just straight up worse than other options for most characters. But dual-wielding as a concept can be pretty awesome. So I've written this mini-guide for players who agree with the previous statement, and want to make a dual-wielding character.
The Rules:
"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."
- PHB, pg. 195
The Dual Wielder feat allows the use of non-light weapons in dual-wielding, and gives a +1 to AC while wielding two weapons.
But the important thing is that Two-Weapon Fighting uses your bonus action, meaning there are many features, spells, and abilities you cannot use in combination with Two-Weapon Fighting on a single turn, which is the main reason why it is generally considered sub-optimal. This mini-guide mainly focuses on this when considering whether a class or archetype is optimal for dual-wielding.
The other thing to consider (for spellcasters) is that if you don't have Warcaster and a weapon useable as a spellcasting focus, you'll need to drop one of those weapons and grab a focus any time you cast a spell with material components. Depending on your DM, you may have to drop it even for somatic components.
Rating Key:
Red: Bad. Unless you've got a very specific idea for how to work around what a bad choice this is, it will stink. Either way, it's most likely going to be less powerful than not doing it.
Purple: Depends on the circumstances, but to the extent that there may often be times where this is a bad idea. Doesn't necessarily imply a lack of power potential. Purple can also mean that the character works as a dual-wielder, but has to sacrifice use of many important class features to do so.
Black: Average. Not really remarkable, and certainly something you can work with without missing out on a lot of other things.
Blue: Good. Within the context of the choice, this is a good idea.
Light Blue: This is probably the most optimal thing you can do, within the context of the choice.
These ratings are just my opinion, based mainly on my personal experiences with playing dual-wielders and dealing with "too many" bonus action options.
For Single-class builds:
Barbarians: Need their bonus action on the first turn of most combats to rage. In addition, dual-wielding Barbarians don't benefit from what some would argue to be the best feat for a Barbarian: Great Weapon Master. Reckless Attack and Rage damage are the only things really helping here, but they do help a lot. Just don't make a Berserker.
Bard: Sword Bards make pretty good dual-wielders since they get the fighting style and can add their Bardic Inspiration dice to their attacks. Anything else either probably shouldn't be in melee or gets too many bonus action features to be optimal. Bards can also use their weapons as spellcasting focuses. If you want to play a spell-casting dual-wielder, Swords Bard with Warcaster would be a pretty good choice.
Clerics: Need their bonus action to cast the spells like Healing Word or Shield of Faith, that, arguably, would be the reason why the melee character would be a Cleric, instead of, say, a Paladin. Plus, you will have to drop that sword to cast quite a few of your spells.
Druid: Same as Cleric, with the added disadvantage of not being proficient with heavy armor and not being allowed metal armor. If you want to play a melee Druid, turn into a Grizzly Bear and "dual-wield" your claws.
Fighter: Already get more attacks than anyone else at the higher levels, with Action Surge granting them even more but not another bonus action. Cavalier and Eldritch Knight already get bonus action attacks at certain levels, Samurai needs the bonus action for its main feature, Battlemaster doesn't really need an extra chance to hit, with Precision Strike and (taking a bonus action) Feinting Attack increasing accuracy. Champion may like dual-wielding if only for the extra chance to score a critical hit, but since that Champion is, as a dual-wielder, at most doing 2d8 damage with that crit, it's not as satisfying as most weapons would be.
Monk: Gets half of their damage and features attached to their bonus actions. Don't do this unless you have a specific magic item or concept you want to do. Niche builds like Dual-Wielder-feat-bearing monks can get a nice AC boost, especially Kensei.
Paladin: Uses their bonus actions for their smite spells. But if you just want more Divine Smites, this may be a decent option; 3 potential smites in 1 turn would seem to be worth it. Too bad you don't get the fighting style, though. With that in mind, this is purple for archetypes like the Vengeance Paladin who already have additional bonus action features, and just barely blue for Paladins who do not. Warcaster isn't necessary for your smites.
Ranger: While spells like Hunter's Mark could be useful against that one big enemy, the amount of bonus action spells and features that Rangers get make this a build only more useful for some then using some other bonus action ability. This would most likely be very bad when combined with Horizon Walker, Beastmaster, or Monster Slayer. Still decent because Gloomstalker or Hunter could likely make use of it.
Rogue (Not a Swashbuckler): This is pretty good, since Rogues normally only get one chance to hit per turn. Assassin especially can take advantage, so to speak, of this on their first turns in combat. But Cunning Action and that second attack can't be used together, so you'll have to plan on how your AC 14-17 rogue will stay out of too much trouble. Mobile could help. Don't combine this with a Mastermind or Inquisitive unless you have good reason. Would be blue, but when you're not playing a Swashbuckler, ranged attacking is almost always the better option for you, so you are sacrificing some real damage potential by playing, say, a Scout Dual-Wielder instead of a Scout Stealth Archer.
Rogue (Swashbuckler): I would argue that this is the best of all Dual-wielding choices. Fancy Footwork means that you no longer need to worry about staying out of trouble, and attacking an extra adjacent enemy means it's even more useful than it is for a single-weapon-holding Swashbuckler. Plus, you get that sneak attack damage even when no one is near your enemy! Amazing. This is my favorite choice for dual-wielders, and I would go so far as to say that a dual-wielding Swashbuckler is more optimal than a Swashbuckler who doesn't dual-wield, even if the latter of the two has a shield.
Sorcerer: If you're making a melee sorcerer, you're usually making a mistake anyways, but making a dual-wielding one is likely even worse. The only thing I can think of for this that would seem at all viable is a Draconic Origin (for natural armor) Sorcerer who...actually, almost any of these would probably be strictly worse than using Booming Blade and quickening it when necessary. And you do still have a d6 hit die. Warcaster won't save this choice.
Warlock: If you're playing a melee warlock, you're probably playing a Hexblade. That means you'll most likely be wanting to use Hexblade's Curse for your first bonus action, and regretfully forgoing any of the bonus action Invocations that involve that. But it's not a terrible idea, especially since you can have a Hexed blade in one hand and your Pact blade in the other, which a level 3 invocation lets you use as your spellcasting focus. Other Patrons' Warlocks need not apply. Warcaster will most likely help you quite a bit.
Wizard: Same as Sorcerer, except that Bladesinger, War Wizard, and Abjuration can give you a few useful features. But you still have d6 hit dice. Your Ward and/or AC boosts only help up until that one critical hit. Of course, like with Sorcerers, this is more of a problem with playing any Melee-focused Wizard, and not one really affected by dual-wielding. You can't use a weapon as a spellcasting focus, but you don't need it for everything.
On Multiclassing:
I now turn you over to the erudite PeteNutButter: http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?502248-Ultimate-Optimizer-s-Multiclassing-Guide
Yes, I cheated a bit in this section. But overall, there aren't really that many optimal multiclass builds for your dual-wielder that wouldn't already be good multiclass builds to begin with. Of course, there are quite a few good multiclasses that just won't work for a dual-wielder, usually due to too many bonus action options. Barbarian/Rogue is a little better for dual wielders than for anyone else, though, I'd say.
I hope this mini-guide was helpful! I welcome any feedback and will certainly change ratings if given valid reason to do so.
~Chrominator
And that's all I have to say about that.
I have found that Swashbucklers really need that bonus action to hit, then use their Cunning Action to Dash way out of the way while relying on Fancy Footwork to ignore the possibility of Opportunity Attacks. If they use their bonus action to attack and not kill kill their target they are a relatively squishy target that just put a lot of hurt on something within striking distance and face the possibility of more targets moving in to cut off their Sneak Attack next round.
Abide.
While I agree with this when the Swashbuckler is alone, as long as the Swashbuckler has a tank of any sort to work with, being squishy doesn't matter all that much, in my experience. Certainly, if your Swashbuckler is the only melee fighter, you will run into problems sometimes. But that's something that, in a well-built party, should never happen. A swashbuckler is still a rogue, and a rogue is still a striker/glass cannon.
I guess I'm saying that I see this as a problem caused more by poor mechanical party dynamic?
When you are the only one facing one or more enemies in melee, you'll definitely want to use Cunning Action to get away. But this should be a rare occurrence, because you should have a tank to work with most of the time.
And that's all I have to say about that.
I would argue that the duel wielding Barbarian is both thematic (dual axes?) and good.
If the feat is spent then the character has +1 AC and Barbarian Rage is triggered per attack not per Turn, so that +2 to +4 damage adds together quickly. Especially since with Savage Attacker this could be procing 3 times a turn consistently.
Aside from the Berzerker Barbarian I don't think the Barbarian actually utilizes their Bonus Actions much. 1) You aren't always going to be Raging and extra attacks and damage always help. 2) Rage only eats 1 Bonus Action every 1 minute, so the sacrifice isn't bad.
Clerics have the problem of basically, but not quite, requiring War Caster.
Divine Strike only procs once a turn, so duel weilding really hegges your bets.
A Cleric can free action put a weapon away and have a free hand for a Bonus Action spell and pull it back out next turn, they rarely have Reaction spells. So War Caster isn't required, but will make your action economy simpler. It removes the need to plan.
If Druid wants to be in melee, play Moon otherwise it's not going to go well. They don't get Extra Attack nor the melee cantrips.
Monks already get Martial Arts. Trying to dual wield is very niche.
Warlock, I don't see Hexblade's curse as the problem it's a *single* turn's action economy. Little is lost. My problem is that Warlocks have amazing ReAction spells to keep them going and a Hexblade only get CHA to attack/damage with a single weapon. The only weapon worth "dual wielding" is the double scimitar from Eberron.
If the Tank is within 5 feet of the Swashbuckler their sneak attack won't fire off meaning that to a certain degree the Swashbuckler has to be, by necessity, on their own. In addition unless the target is largely mindless the Swashbuckler will be a preferred target, churning out more pain with less armor.
Abide.
From XGTE, pg. 47: "All other rules for Sneak Attack still apply to you."
This means that, though it requires some positioning, Sneak Attack is still obtainable for your Swashbuckler simply from having an ally within 5 feet of the enemy. So, while you can't get sneak attack damage if, say, you are between your tank and an enemy, you could use your first attack, even if it can't benefit from sneak attack damage, to allow you to move into a position where either you are next to no one except an enemy, or your enemy is next to your ally.
You can dart out, stab the enemy twice, then run back so they can't get to you without moving past the tank.
The latter is a valid point, but it really depends on your DM's idea of what a strategic move is for a specific creature. If you position your swashbuckler well, your enemies will have to provoke opportunity attacks from your tank (and, perhaps, other party members) in order to target you.
If your DM always has their creatures charge you over anyone in better armor, Swashbuckler is less useful, but maybe get your Fighter friend to take Sentinel?
And that's all I have to say about that.
I'm not really sure what you mean by "triggered per attack not per Turn" and the Savage Attacker bit. Could you please elaborate?
I agree with what you said about Barbarian, besides that. Depending on what you mean by the above, I'm thinking I may bring it up to blue.
Unfortunately, you still need the free hand for any material components, even with War Caster. But Clerics do get a decent amount of spells that could be cast in the way you described. I'm not sure whether it should change the rating, though.
Yeah, I think purple was too generous. Bringing it down to red now.
Actually, Jeremy Crawford confirmed that Hexblades can use their Charisma to hit with both their "Hex Warrior" weapon and their summoned/magical pact weapon (though only their pact weapon can be a spellcasting focus when combined with the necessary invocation) here: https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/930235396792786944
I think Warlocks are still black, since only one subclass does anything for dual-wielding, and that second hexed blade won't get pact weapon benefits.
And that's all I have to say about that.
Hi Chrominator,
I apologize met clarify.
So for damage dealing abilities I've found there are generally two times.
Proc 1/Turn: Sneak Attack, Divine Strike, Colossus Slayer, etc...
Proc 1/Hit: Hexblade's Curse, Hex, Rage, Hunter's Mark, etc...
Any ability that Procs 1/Turn benefits from multiple attacks only in that each attack gives a chance that the player will hit and therefore the ability will proc. I think of it as "Burst Damage".
Any ability that Procs 1/Hit benefits from multiple attacks in that every time an attack hits the damage procs. I think of it as "Consistent Damage"
Abilities like Reckless Attackincreases chance to hit by about +5 (lowers chance of 1s and increases crit chance), giving you more consistent hitting. Lets take 2 5th lvl Barbarians with +3 Str.
Thud the Barbarian has a Great Axe and Great Weapon Master and is utilizing Reckless Attack.
+3 (Proficiency) +3 (Str) +5 (Reckless Attack) -5 (Great Weapon Master) = average To Hit of +6. Has 2 attacks and any attacks that hit deal 2d6+3 (Great Axe+STR) +10 (Great Weapon Master) +2 (Rage).
If Thud hits with 1 attack that's an average damage of 21, both attacks are 42! quite a lot.
Rothgar the Barbarian has twin axes and Dual Wielder and is utilizing Reckless Attack.
+3 (Proficiency) +3 (Str) +5 (Reckless Attack) = average To Hit of +11. Has 3 attacks and any attacks that hit deal 1d8+3 (Battle Axe+STR) +2 (Rage)
If Rothgar hits with 1 attack that's an average damage of 6-9 (6 is for the off hand attack, 9 for the two primaries), with all 3 attacks it's 24. Little better then Thud can in a single attack.
Lets take a look at them at lvl 1.
That said Rothgar is much more likely to hit any particular attack then Thud. I personally don't think either build is "better", it's all about the trades the player wants to make. Thud could get unlucky and roll 1s on all his damage dice, but even if Rothgar rolls all 1st he'll do more damage.
† Edited as per Chrominator
I see. Thanks for the explanation.
I believe you mean "Reckless Attack," not "Savage Attack." Just a minor thing.
If both barbarians are level 5, a CR 5 creature, will, per the DMG, have, on average, have an AC of 15.
Using this handy DPR calculator, courtesy of LudicSavant, I'll look at both Thud and Rothgar over a 2 round phase, so both can enter their rage and still get straight to their other bonus action features.
Thud will use his power attack on every attack (though most barbarian players don't do this, to be fair) and Reckless Attack every turn, so he has +1 to hit and advantage, and deals 1d12+3+2+10 (1d12+15) per hit. In total, he gets 4 attacks (with an additional if he gets a critical hit on his second turn), averaging about 79 damage over the 2 turns.
Rothgar makes 5 total attacks, Reckless Attack-ing on both turns so he has +6 to hit and advantage, dealing 1d8+3+2 (1d8+5) damage per hit. He'll average about 48 damage.
Now, with an enemy with a higher AC, Rothgar would start to surpass Thud's power attacking every turn, but it evens out because, going the other direction, Thud's average damage increases more significantly versus a lower AC than Rothgar's does. And if they both roll low on the damage dice, Thud's huge damage modifier means he'd still beat Rothgar in that area.
In conclusion, I feel like the only reason you'd make a barbarian dual-wielder (coolness aside) is that you want a slight AC boost (largely irrelevant when you recklessly attack) and a higher chance to get some hit-triggered ability to go off (which a barbarian doesn't have too many of). But it still seems, strictly speaking, worse than the heavy weapon-wielding barbarian whose massive damage from power attacks (which he doesn't have to use all the time) outweighs his occasionally smaller chance to hit. So black still seems fair, as it's what I've used for other choices that make decent dual-wielders, but are generally weaker than non-dual-wielding builds in that class (See Paladin and non-Swashbuckler Rogue as examples of that).
And that's all I have to say about that.
I don't think that's true.
Warcaster states: "You can perform the somatic components of spells even when you have weapons or a shield in one or both hands."Material Components states: "A spellcaster must have a hand free to access a spell's material components -- or to hold a spellcasting focus -- but it can be the same hand that he or she uses to perform somatic components."I would believe that because Warcaster allows the caster to perform somatic components when you have your hands full, therefore that same full hand can use material components.Editing after finding this article.
https://twitter.com/jeremyecrawford/status/580184885567991808?lang=en
IF you have a spell focus and no materials are consumed then you can use the spell focus to substitute the material and somatic components.
IF the spell has somatic components without material then you need Warcaster.
Paladins actually don't use their bonus action for smites. Smites are totally seperate from full or bonus actions. Which makes paladins top tier for this kind of build imo.
Read the post more closely, "smite spells". While Divine smite is free, basically all the smite spells require a bonus action, stack with Divine Smite, and have secondary effects such as knocking a target prone for adv. on all the rest of your attacks.
Edit: not to say dual-wielding paladins are bad, just that there is a reason to have a bonus action. BA smite spells often do less damage compared to dual-wielding smite, but often have other effects.
Also Improved Divine Smite is great on a dual-wielder.
if I edit a message, most of the time it's because of grammar. The rest of the time I'll put "Edit:" at the bottom.
Additionally,
Battlesmith and Artillerist are totally out, as both use their bonus action for pet/turret. Echo knight is out for obvious reasons - the echo uses the bonus action to spawn and swap position.
I suspect something like a melee-oriented cleric, (Tempest, eg) could work well, or well enough.
Lore bard could work OK too - since cutting words is reaction-based, it removes some of the competition for the bonus action between the extra attack and inspiration dice.
Echo Knight is further removed from being amble to utilize two weapon fighting as the Manifest Echo feature limits attacks the fighter can originate from the echo to attacks made specifically with its attack action. Two weapon fighting nor any feature that grants a bonus action attack would be useable with the echo even if the echo wasn’t immediately destroyed.
Although not the most damage without hunter's mark, duel wielding rangers do respectable damage with two short swords, all without the use of a spell slot or concentration. Hunter rangers are doing even better with either colossus slayer or horde breaker.
A level 6 ranger with a longbow (pretty common), +4 dexterity modifier, and hunter's mark is doing (1d8 + 4 + 1d6)*2 for 24 average damage.
A hunter ranger at the same level with two short swords, +4 dexterity modifier, and colossus slayer (and no spell slot or concentration used!) is doing ((1d6 + 4)*3 + 1d8) for 27 average damage.
A level 6 duel wielding fighter is doing (1d6 + 5)*3 for 25.5 average damage.
If there is just one BBEG target, the hunter ranger can take a slight dip in their turn one damage (26.5 on average) to setup hunter's mark for ((1d6 + 4 + 1d6)*3 + 1d8) for 37.5 average damage on turns 2 and onward, assuming they don't lose hunter's mark. But even if they do lose hunter's mark, they give up 0.5 average damage on turn one to gain 10.5 average damage on the following turn(s). Tasha's makes it even easier with favored foe. Any ranger can duel wield two short swords for ((1d6 + 4)*3 + 1d6) 26 average damage at level 6 and ((1d6 + 5)*3 + 1d6) 29 average damage at level 8, no spell slot required.
Also, much of the art of adventurers duel wielding are of them holding a sword in one hand and a dagger in the other. One thing a ranger losses when they duel wiled is the use of some of their great proprietary spells that use a ranged attack, like hail of thorns and lightning arrow. If they use a one handed sword and take the dueling fighting style they can still deal good damage from their attacks AND have access to throwing a dagger at a group of enemies for AoE damage.
I'd love to play a DW ranger, but between so many spells and features using the BA and the requirement to have a hand free to cast spells at all it just never works out. Yes, you can pick certain spells and take Warcaster etc, etc, but it feels like fighting the system to build an archetype that should already exist without so much work.
If Favored Foe was supposed to alleviate this, it missed the mark. The fact that it's once/turn removes the whole synergy of Hunter's Mark with multiple attacks in the first place.
Not to say Ranger is bad or DW is totally not viable. It's just not really better than say a DW Battlemaster, especially at later levels when Ranger is leaning more on its spells to keep up.
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 hear ya.
I would encourage you to look at the damage output of what you expect the ranger to "keep up with" and start from there and see what a ranger can do duel wielding to meet that number. Levels 2 through 10 the baseline ranger is going to meet or beat the other martial classes at duel wielding. The fighter really pulls ahead at level 11 and up. But that is what a fighter is supposed to do. If we start with the math and then work the class abilities backwards from there its less discouraging and usually successful. For example, a baseline fighter duel wielding short swords at level 10 is 25.5 average damage. That's not a difficult number for any ranger to hit, no matter what weapon combination they are using. Does a battle master do a little better than a baseline fighter? Sure! But a hunter does better than a baseline ranger.
Many of the spells a ranger would even want to use as a martial character are spells that require only a verbal component or only a verbal and material component with the material component being the weapon used.
Just brainstorming and i know this is homebrew but what would be some improvements to duel wielding ?
Would making it a free action like the beast barbarian claws help?
What if you can get an extra off hand attack based off half of how many attacks you can make? Although this will only benefit a lv11 fighter...
With all of you giving actual analysis and data what would you suggest?
I think the best thing they could have done (or do) for two weapon fighting is to remove the “when you take the attack action” bit. Meaning, anytime you are holding two light melee weapons and make an attack, you can make an attack with the other weapon as well. Meaning, AoO extra damage and such. So the damage would go up a bit situationally without being too powerful on your actual turn.
So I am intrigued to see if dual wielding can be rehabilitated somewhat using the new feats from Tasha's.
Slasher:
You’ve learned where to cut to have the greatest results, granting you the following benefits:
Increase your Strength or Dexterity by 1, to a maximum of 20.
Once per turn when you hit a creature with an attack that deals slashing damage, you can reduce the speed of the target by 10 feet until the start of your next turn.
When you score a critical hit that deals slashing damage to a creature, you grievously wound it. Until the start of your next turn, the target has disadvantage on all attack rolls.
Crusher:
You are practiced in the art of crushing your enemies, granting you the following benefits:
A fighter with both of these feats could be a pretty decent controlling tank without having to rely on consumable resources. Battlemaster is the obvious candidate, but rune knight could be fun too.