They're not the same even without feats/items. At level ~5, TWF with shortswords/scimitars gives 3 attacks with an average damage of 7.5 each (1d6+4), for a total of 22.5. GWF with a greatsword gives 2 attacks averaging 13 damage each (2d6b2+4) for a total of 26. And the GWF still has his bonus actions left over for spells or whatever whereas the TWF loses 7.5 damage every time he has to spend his bonus action on something else.
Yes, obviously, play what you want and if you want to play something even though it's underpowered it'll probably be fine. But that doesn't change what the power levels are, isn't relevant to a discussion of what is or isn't powerful, and presumably someone who specifically wants to play a dual-wielding character come hell or high water wouldn't be in here asking if there's any point in taking TWF.
TWF is bad. It's mechanically worse than the other options. If you want to play it anyway because you think it's cool, go nuts. It will still be bad. If you don't care that it's bad, that's okay! You're allowed to not care! But not caring if it's bad doesn't make it good.
Hopefully this sufficiently addresses the ritual 'why does anyone care about power level' portion of this power level conversation.
Your math is off.
2x 2d6+4 averages 22. With the fighting style it does come to 26, my bad!
The duelist will average 21.
I think you'd agree those are all rather similar numbers.
TWF is great right up until 11 when fighters get their third attack, feats not accounted for.
The value of the bonus action depends on class and fight; hunter's mark/hex require something that won't die in 1 round, if it's a boss you're fine.
And again, it isn't "bad", it just doesn't do any of the fancy stuff you can do with certain feats that might not be allowed in your game.
evilthecat on
tip.. tip.. TALLY.. HOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!
0
Options
Saint JusticeMercenaryMah-vel Baybee!!!Registered Userregular
Abbalah, I agree that TWF is underpowered compared to the other options. That being said, your post oozes with a condescending, antagonistic tone that seems completely unnecessary. Not trying to pick a fight with you, just letting you know in case it was unintentional.
Some people play tennis, I erode the human soul. ~ Tycho
Conceptually, my character has a pact with a marilith, so two weapon fighting seems more thematically appropriate, and I wouldn't expect a guy with two light weapons to be hitting as hard as someone with a great weapon.
It feels like there should be some greater benefit to taking the two weapon fighting style, if not in raw damage then at least in versatility. I know there is no main hand/offhand differentiation, so which weapon you're making the bonus action attack with could vary.
They're not the same even without feats/items. At level ~5, TWF with shortswords/scimitars gives 3 attacks with an average damage of 7.5 each (1d6+4), for a total of 22.5. GWF with a greatsword gives 2 attacks averaging 13 damage each (2d6b2+4) for a total of 26. And the GWF still has his bonus actions left over for spells or whatever whereas the TWF loses 7.5 damage every time he has to spend his bonus action on something else.
Yes, obviously, play what you want and if you want to play something even though it's underpowered it'll probably be fine. But that doesn't change what the power levels are, isn't relevant to a discussion of what is or isn't powerful, and presumably someone who specifically wants to play a dual-wielding character come hell or high water wouldn't be in here asking if there's any point in taking TWF.
TWF is bad. It's mechanically worse than the other options. If you want to play it anyway because you think it's cool, go nuts. It will still be bad. If you don't care that it's bad, that's okay! You're allowed to not care! But not caring if it's bad doesn't make it good.
Hopefully this sufficiently addresses the ritual 'why does anyone care about power level' portion of this power level conversation.
Your math is off.
2x 2d6+4 averages 22. With the fighting style it does come to 26, my bad!
The duelist will average 21.
I think you'd agree those are all rather similar numbers.
TWF is great right up until 11 when fighters get their third attack, feats not accounted for.
The value of the bonus action depends on class and fight; hunter's mark/hex require something that won't die in 1 round, if it's a boss you're fine.
And again, it isn't "bad", it just doesn't do any of the fancy stuff you can do with certain feats that might not be allowed in your game.
I think putting out ~15% less damage without feats and then falling even further behind if you take feats into account (which most games do) falls comfortably within the realm of "bad".
You also don't actually break even on hex after 1 round, or indeed at all - GWF can hex too, and doesn't have to give up any damage to do it, whereas TWF gives up 7.5 damage to cast the spell and then only gets 3.5 per turn back starting on the turn after the cast. You have to be hitting the same target for 3 turns just to recover the damage lost relative to the GWF by casting it in the first place, and by that point the GWF is about 10 points of damage ahead just based on its larger base damage. From then on, you're not actually even catching up the GWF option, just not falling further behind - the advantage you get from your 3rd hex trigger every turn just causes you to deal the same amount of damage the GWF was already dealing. But you stay at least 10 points behind forever, and then lose another 11 every time you have to retarget your hex. If you fight 3 monsters in a combat, by the end of it you'll basically have skipped a turn compared to going GWF.
And this math all assumes only 2 attacks; if we actually are looking at fighters with 3 attacks, the numbers get much, much worse for TWF.
Abbalah, I agree that TWF is underpowered compared to the other options. That being said, your post oozes with a condescending, antagonistic tone that seems completely unnecessary. Not trying to pick a fight with you, just letting you know in case it was unintentional.
Not intended to read that way, except insofar as I am very tired of retreading the entire 'you don't have to min/max' tangent every time I have a conversation about the power level of a particular game piece.
Conceptually, my character has a pact with a marilith, so two weapon fighting seems more thematically appropriate, and I wouldn't expect a guy with two light weapons to be hitting as hard as someone with a great weapon.
It feels like there should be some greater benefit to taking the two weapon fighting style, if not in raw damage then at least in versatility. I know there is no main hand/offhand differentiation, so which weapon you're making the bonus action attack with could vary.
If you're looking for a houserule to fit the flavor, I'd suggest lifting from Flurry of Blows and having TWF let you make 2 attacks as a bonus action rather than 1 attack+stat bonus. You're basically trading +4-5 damage from your stat bonus out for +3.5 from the extra d6 attack, but opening up better opportinities to take advantage of multiattack synergies like Hex and the Hexblade Curse.
Alternately you could cut into the anti-synergy those bonus-action effects have with TWF by having TWF let you make the extra attack for free instead of as a bonus action, so you could actually cast those synergy abilities without giving up your damage to do it.
Either way, though, you still run up against the problem that you can only use CHA to attack with one of your weapons, not both. You could houserule that away too, but I dunno how much you want to bend the mechanics for the flavor.
Mariliths are large-sized - theoretically a sword sized for a marilith being wielded by a human could be represented by a greatsword, if you wanted to try and get to the flavor that way.
So is there any reason to pick Two-Weapon Fighting, at least for a Hexblade? The only positve I see is that it effectively gives you one extra multiattack.
There's very little reason for anyone to take Two-Weapon Fighting ever. It doesn't actually even give you an extra attack - anyone wielding two light weapons can take a bonus action to make that extra attack, without Two-Weapon Fighting or the Dual-Wielder feat. The only thing Two-Weapon Fighting does is let you add your ability mod to the damage of that offhand attack, which is a marginal damage increase that is matched or beaten by every other damage-increasing fighting style even before accounting for the fact that those other styles also have access to various ways of generating that bonus action attack for themselves anyway.
It's particularly suboptimal for a Hexblade because if you're playing a Hexblade you're likely relying on Hex Warrior to let you make attacks with your CHA instead of your STR/DEX, and Hex Warrior can only be applied to one weapon at a time.
Dual-wielding in general is basically a victim of the very tight control 5e imposes on the action economy alongside the standardization of attacks across characters/classes. It's almost always substantially worse than both sword and shield and two-handers. It's usually worse than just bringing a single one-handed weapon and using your free hand to make shadow puppets.
If you are pact of the blade you can have 2 hex warrior weapons.
Your pact blade and the one physical one you can hit each day
Either way, though, you still run up against the problem that you can only use CHA to attack with one of your weapons, not both. You could houserule that away too, but I dunno how much you want to bend the mechanics for the flavor.
Honestly for me, though I would probably bend the rules for flavor here, I'd say the more pressing issue would be bending the rules for bookkeeping. It's kind of tedious to be simultaneously wielding two attacks which have different bonuses to the die, ESPECIALLY if you choose to do something like give them the extra attack without a bonus action, or give them two attacks in exchange for the bonus action, since then you'd be more likely to want to roll that die alongside the first one, etc.
It'd be different if it was like, a sword and a hand crossbow or something, since those feel different when envisioning/imagining them, but it would feel real weird and kind of bad to me if I had a "good sword" and a "bad sword"
Is it feasible for players to control more than one character at a time? I suggested to the kids maybe we need a couple more characters in the party and they're all about it. We're less on RP and more on just having fun with the PCs killing and looting.
It can get complicated quickly, I'd suggest no more than 2 sheets per player. Also putting an NPC or two into the party to help out is always an option. Since they are like MM entries they are easier to run than full characters. They also sometimes come with cool extra powers that can do cool stuff for the party, and can flavor the adventure a little more. Oh helping the city guard with something? Here's a couple of guards. Ooh you're helping the barbarians in the north? Here's some berserkers for the party for this adventure.
Is it feasible for players to control more than one character at a time? I suggested to the kids maybe we need a couple more characters in the party and they're all about it. We're less on RP and more on just having fun with the PCs killing and looting.
My dad introduced me to 2nd edition dnd when I was about 10-11 ish, maybe a year or two younger. It was me, my sister (who is 1.5yr younger than I am), and my mom, with my dad as DM, and each of the three of us piloted two characters. It wasn't that big of a deal when I did it, though I don't have clear enough memories to know how much help with the rules I needed. They are good memories though, so take that as an anecdotal vote for "it should be fine," especially considering how much simpler 5e is than AD&D
I once created a companion character for a two player group during 4E that was pretty much just an animated spider web. It draped over one PC like a cloak when not in use, but once combat was joined it would curl up into a ball of webbing to roll towards an enemy and then unfurl itself on them.
Let me try and replicate it:
The living web activates at the start of battle and rolls its own initiative. On its turn, the web rolls forward to entangle the closest enemy, moving up to 30 feet towards the target. When the web enters the target's space it and any other enemies within 5 feet of it must succeed on a DC 15 Dexterity saving throw or become restrained. Allies of the web are not affected.
Any member of the party can release the restrained creatures by using a bonus action to speak a command word. A target restrained by the living web can use an action to make a DC 15 Strength or Dexterity check (target's choice). On a success, the creature is no longer restrained by the web.
The living web has AC 20 and 20 hit points. It regains 1 hit point every 5 minutes as long as it has at least 1 hit point. If the web drops to 0 hit points, it is destroyed, but reforms after a short or long rest.
The above is primarily based on the Rope of Entanglement magic item.
I once created a companion character for a two player group during 4E that was pretty much just an animated spider web. It draped over one PC like a cloak when not in use, but once combat was joined it would curl up into a ball of webbing to roll towards an enemy and then unfurl itself on them.
Let me try and replicate it:
The living web activates at the start of battle and rolls its own initiative. On its turn, the web rolls forward to entangle the closest enemy, moving up to 30 feet towards the target. When the web enters the target's space it and any other enemies within 5 feet of it must succeed on a DC 15 Dexterity saving throw or become restrained. Allies of the web are not affected.
Any member of the party can release the restrained creatures by using a bonus action to speak a command word. A target restrained by the living web can use an action to make a DC 15 Strength or Dexterity check (target's choice). On a success, the creature is no longer restrained by the web.
The living web has AC 20 and 20 hit points. It regains 1 hit point every 5 minutes as long as it has at least 1 hit point. If the web drops to 0 hit points, it is destroyed, but reforms after a short or long rest.
The above is primarily based on the Rope of Entanglement magic item.
I once created a companion character for a two player group during 4E that was pretty much just an animated spider web. It draped over one PC like a cloak when not in use, but once combat was joined it would curl up into a ball of webbing to roll towards an enemy and then unfurl itself on them.
Let me try and replicate it:
The living web activates at the start of battle and rolls its own initiative. On its turn, the web rolls forward to entangle the closest enemy, moving up to 30 feet towards the target. When the web enters the target's space it and any other enemies within 5 feet of it must succeed on a DC 15 Dexterity saving throw or become restrained. Allies of the web are not affected.
Any member of the party can release the restrained creatures by using a bonus action to speak a command word. A target restrained by the living web can use an action to make a DC 15 Strength or Dexterity check (target's choice). On a success, the creature is no longer restrained by the web.
The living web has AC 20 and 20 hit points. It regains 1 hit point every 5 minutes as long as it has at least 1 hit point. If the web drops to 0 hit points, it is destroyed, but reforms after a short or long rest.
The above is primarily based on the Rope of Entanglement magic item.
Was it named Webster?
I think if was called the Living Web of Alrune.
0
Options
Saint JusticeMercenaryMah-vel Baybee!!!Registered Userregular
But it's first name was Charlotte, right?
Some people play tennis, I erode the human soul. ~ Tycho
All 3rd party character creators are going to have the same problem, they only legally have access to the 5e SRD, which is missing a bunch of subclasses, and a few spells. Some let you load in 'custom' subclasses and you can usually find the non-SRD classes that way.
They're not the same even without feats/items. At level ~5, TWF with shortswords/scimitars gives 3 attacks with an average damage of 7.5 each (1d6+4), for a total of 22.5. GWF with a greatsword gives 2 attacks averaging 13 damage each (2d6b2+4) for a total of 26. And the GWF still has his bonus actions left over for spells or whatever whereas the TWF loses 7.5 damage every time he has to spend his bonus action on something else.
Yes, obviously, play what you want and if you want to play something even though it's underpowered it'll probably be fine. But that doesn't change what the power levels are, isn't relevant to a discussion of what is or isn't powerful, and presumably someone who specifically wants to play a dual-wielding character come hell or high water wouldn't be in here asking if there's any point in taking TWF.
TWF is bad. It's mechanically worse than the other options. If you want to play it anyway because you think it's cool, go nuts. It will still be bad. If you don't care that it's bad, that's okay! You're allowed to not care! But not caring if it's bad doesn't make it good.
Hopefully this sufficiently addresses the ritual 'why does anyone care about power level' portion of this power level conversation.
GWF is NOT 2d6b2 its only 2d6 reroll 1 and 2's ONCE. You keep what you roll the second time. So the average is not 4.5 per d6 its 4.1666 per d6. And this is only when using a great sword, if using a longsword or something else its much weaker. And there are legitmiate reasons to use those weapons especially for Orcs and Barbarians (which technically only get 1d6 extra when critting with Greatsword even if i never play that way), or Eldrich Knights(which, while they should not TWF, still want a spare hand for somatic components)
Additionally for classes that aren't fighter (or are battlemaster if you're specifically crit fishing) the ability to get more attacks and so stack more bonus damage (like... hex for the Warlock we were talking about) is quite good.
Additionally, while you may have to stow your weapon, if you want to do anything with the off hand and still attack you still can while dual wielding. Which you cannot do while using a two handed weapon OR using a shield. If you're using a shield then you're at a 1 round doff action before you can attack and a two handed weapon simply cannot until you drop the other thing you're holding. This is a big one, because if the thing you're holding is important then you're done if you're using a greatsword
As it stands TWF isn't bad either just in terms of marginal value. It gives you +3 to 5 damage per turn. GWF gives you 1.33 damage per attack.(only if using a great sword). So the break-point is at 3 to 4 attacks. That is plenty fine considering that we are comparing the best case GWF to any case TWF.
So at 2 attacks the TWF fighter is at 3d6 + 12 = 22.5 Or 25.5 with +5 stat
The GWF fighter with a Greatsword is at 4d6(r2) +8 = 24.644 or 26.644 with +5 stat.
That isn't much of a difference considering the TWF fighter gets 50% more crit fishes (and attacks) to slam superiority die into AND still has options to do things when one of his hands is otherwise taken up by a thing not a weapon
With feats TWF falls behind... But not actually as much. You gain +.7 damage/attack and 1 AC(assuming you hit 70% of the time). So at 2 attacks you gain 21 damage and 1 AC. GWF gains +10 damage with -5 to attack and a bonus action that is sometimes relevant, lets ignore downing and say 5% relevant so its worth .5195 damage/attack(because you have a 5% probability of procing and lets be generous and say you have a 70% chance to hit)
The actual damage increase from GWF if you don't have advantage (or aren't slamming superiority die into the attack which may or may not be the best option i don't know) peaks at ~3.66 damage/attack*. If you have a 70% chance to hit then power attacking gives you 1.15 damage/attack. At 2 attacks you're actually behind on the TWF margin with 65% base hit chance and below. At 70% hit chance you will be slightly ahead in general; they gained 2.1 damage and 1 AC and you gained 2.81 damage. GWF is definitely better when considering advantage... but the TWF'er still crit fishes better. And considering that most people think that the defender fighting style is better than the GWF style when the GWF style gives 1.333 damage/attack and the defender style only gives 1 AC it looks a lot like the TWF came out ahead in the feats, what with only losing a margin of .7 damage for the 1 AC.
*within a range that assumes you never would actually hit on a 1 provided the hard miss chance aspects were ignored
extra attack on crit adds aprox 1.17 to avg w/ GWM
extra attack on crit adds aprox 0.67 to avg w/o GWM
71.16 avg dpr (32.02 w/ miss chance)
40.66 avg dpr (28.46 w/ miss chance
Math supplied here shows only an increase of 1.33 damage with great weapon fighting style and a greatsword, going from an average of 7 to 8.33
Now, these numbers go completely out of wack and in favor of the GWM with things like Bless or Advantage in the mix, and doesn't take into account what other things you might like to do with a Bonus Action. But Bonus Actions aren't guaranteed, and are mostly class dependent.
Something else to consider is if you're hitting one single sack of HP (eg Owlbear) or a bunch of smaller dudes (eg Kobolds or Gnolls). If an enemy has 7 health left, or only had 7 health to begin with, dealing 14 damage on one attack is worthless compared to being able to deal 7 damage to the monster and getting another attack on a separate monster, or getting second attack if the first misses. TWF means you're more likely to deal -some- damage, even if the total damage is lower, while GWF often means you're going to be wasting damage.
With magic items, getting two +2 handaxes is going to give a larger damage increase than a single +2 maul, as you get the +2 damage on an addition hit. Other options like a Barbarian's Rage will add damage, and Hunter's Mark and Hex are things that also exist. With the handaxe example, you also have the option to throw them for turns where you're unable to engage in melee combat.
Are there any good character generators out there? I found Orcpub but they seem to be missing some options.
Try DnD beyond. It's a website that first party, and have all the published options. Only disadvantage is that if your already bought the books physically there is no way to account for it.
Something else to consider is if you're hitting one single sack of HP (eg Owlbear) or a bunch of smaller dudes (eg Kobolds or Gnolls). If an enemy has 7 health left, or only had 7 health to begin with, dealing 14 damage on one attack is worthless compared to being able to deal 7 damage to the monster and getting another attack on a separate monster, or getting second attack if the first misses. TWF means you're more likely to deal -some- damage, even if the total damage is lower, while GWF often means you're going to be wasting damage.
With magic items, getting two +2 handaxes is going to give a larger damage increase than a single +2 maul, as you get the +2 damage on an addition hit. Other options like a Barbarian's Rage will add damage, and Hunter's Mark and Hex are things that also exist. With the handaxe example, you also have the option to throw them for turns where you're unable to engage in melee combat.
Weapons are actually a big downside of TWF since you can only attune to 3 items total.
Edit: in general I find that the flexibility of a long sword or TWF tends to do better (since now the tank can effectively do non-combat things... which is who you want doing these things) than using a 2 handed weapon. But I am a sticer for my own action and hand economy. Even when using a 2 hander the damage increase is less than it would seem compared to TWF.
You only have to have both hands free while taking the Attack action with a 2-hander, At any other point in your turn or someone else's you are free to use one hand to do something (open a door, cast a spell, chug a potion, whatever)
Only things that would cause a failure if you ever let whatever go for even a fraction of a second. A round is 6 seconds, your attack only takes up a fraction of that. Also, if you strictly police the one item interaction a turn I guess. Though, dropping something doesn't take your free Item Interaction.
Drag your ally, attack. Start dragging again on your next turn. Issue if you need to attack during your movement or something is attempting to drag them in another direction. Only actually an issue during the first turn, you lost 1 round of attacks to do it completely proper in subsequent rounds
Assuming you are already holding the wheel, you attack then go back to holding the wheel. Again, if you aren't holding the wheel already you will lose 1 round of attacks.
You can control a mount with your legs, nothing says you have to have a free hand. A wagon would possibly run into issue though. It all depends on when you started holding the reigns,
A chest full of treasure is something you'd be holding in both hands anyway, unless you're dragging it, then see the first example.
Now here's one that would apply, assuming you were the one over the cliff. Otherwise, just tie the rope around yourself (I learned how to tie the bowline around myself 1 handed in the scouts, a simple knot would be easier).
Even in the examples where this stuff actually matters - which are going to be relatively rare compared to turns where you just have to hit a guy, unless you find yourself holding off enemies with one-handed attacks while hanging from a cliff with the other hand much more often then I do - you're...still not actually getting any benefit from TWF, because the TWF bonus only applies to the bonus action attack, which you can only take with a different weapon held in a different hand from the one you took the attack action with.
The GWF player will deal more damage turn-to-turn in basically every standard combat scenario, and then in wierd situations where he for some reason only has one hand available he is perfectly capable of dropping/stowing the greatsword and drawing a longsword to fight one-handed with and will still be more capable than the TWF guy in that very narrow scenario because he'll have a longsword and the TWF guy likely only brought a shortsword/scimitar since you can't TWF with a longsword without the feat.
And if they do have feats, the GWF guy can still cleave people with his longsword but the TWF will get no benefit from his feat because he's not holding a weapon in each hand.
I've been pondering my party size dellima all day. Does it really MATTER what size the party is? I can see where pre made scenarios have a recommended size, but even then does a party of 2 really have a disadvantage over a party of 4 if encounters are scaled correctly?
I've been pondering my party size dellima all day. Does it really MATTER what size the party is? I can see where pre made scenarios have a recommended size, but even then does a party of 2 really have a disadvantage over a party of 4 if encounters are scaled correctly?
They'll be more fragile. If things go badly for a party of 4 by means of an unlucky roll then they still have 3 folks and 3 sets of actions. They're only down 25% because of an unlucky roll. For a party of 2 if one of them gets unlucky they're down 50% of their resources. They'll have a harder time recovering from those sorts of situations.
Combat wise you have the issue of, even scaled, 2 going down is easier than 3 or more. Outside of combat you can run into skill gaps, but those can be glossed over or worked around. Good RP can go a long way towards resolving social encounters without rolling a single dice for example. Have a helpful NPC to give info.
I've been pondering my party size dellima all day. Does it really MATTER what size the party is? I can see where pre made scenarios have a recommended size, but even then does a party of 2 really have a disadvantage over a party of 4 if encounters are scaled correctly?
Depends on the part composition and how flexible the game you're playing is.
I mean, a party of 4 can realistically have a smashy guy, a healy guy, a traps guy and a blasty guy (presumably one of them doing double duty as the talky guy). So, if they're in a dungeon designed for that kind of party, each character should have a moment or two to shine where they're the one who can do the thing.
The party of two have to either multi task or do without.
If you're adjusting the game on the fly to match the group, then yeah, party size doesn't matter. Just keep in mind what the party can do and what will probably result in them getting killed while you're assembling your encounters..
Even in the examples where this stuff actually matters - which are going to be relatively rare compared to turns where you just have to hit a guy, unless you find yourself holding off enemies with one-handed attacks while hanging from a cliff with the other hand much more often then I do - you're...still not actually getting any benefit from TWF, because the TWF bonus only applies to the bonus action attack, which you can only take with a different weapon held in a different hand from the one you took the attack action with.
The GWF player will deal more damage turn-to-turn in basically every standard combat scenario, and then in wierd situations where he for some reason only has one hand available he is perfectly capable of dropping/stowing the greatsword and drawing a longsword to fight one-handed with and will still be more capable than the TWF guy in that very narrow scenario because he'll have a longsword and the TWF guy likely only brought a shortsword/scimitar since you can't TWF with a longsword without the feat.
And if they do have feats, the GWF guy can still cleave people with his longsword but the TWF will get no benefit from his feat because he's not holding a weapon in each hand.
Many interesting combat scenarios involve places where you can utilize the off hand.
While you do indeed lose the off hand attack and benefit of TWF you do not lose the entirety of your action. I.E. you do slightly less damage normally in exchange for a lesser reduction in damage when it matters.
There are plenty of things that you can indeed not let go of because regrasping them is an action. Sometimes its not but many times it is. As is tying a rope around yourself etc. That is an action, strictly.
TWF is high damage plus a minor drop in damage when you want flexibility. GWF is a small advantage in damage in exchange for the flexibility.
Like, the math shows you really do not do all that much more damage, and maybe even less once you consider the ability to crit fish on extra attacks. That isn't to say that 2 handed weapons are bad, its just to say that they're not strictly better than TWF.
And if they do have feats, the GWF guy can still cleave people with his longsword but the TWF will get no benefit from his feat because he's not holding a weapon in each hand.
Sure... but a GWF longsword user loses damage compared to a TWF fighter (20.6 vs 22.5)... A dueling longsword user does as well (21 vs 22.5). Which well is a reasonable tradeoff for more utility just as the increased damage of a two handed weapon is a tradeoff for less utility
Tying a rope CAN be an action, depending on your DM. As I said earlier regrasping most things will be covered.
The DM might require you to use an action for any of these activities when it needs special care or when it presents an unusual obstacle. For instance, the DM could reasonably expect you to use an action to open a stuck door or turn a crank to lower a drawbridge.
Emphasis mine. Otherwise it's an Item Interaction, of which you get one free per turn. I said earlier, I learned how to tie a bowline around myself one handed in the scouts, as a rescue procedure. But even if you couldn't tie a knot, wrapping it around yourself a couple times would accomplish much the same result. Even then, if it take an Action to do, you're not Attacking that turn anyway so having the weapon out doesn't mean much.
Well, you see, if you don't have a two handed weapon you can just hold onto the rope. You don't have to waste the action tying it because you can just hold it in your free hand and attack with the other. Holding into the rope doesn't take an action. If you look at the list you will see absolutely nothing close to as involved as tying a rope. At the very least "picking up the rope" took up your "use an action as a part of your movement" allocation and either you're waiting or you're using your action to tie the rope.
I have never met a DM that would allow you to tie a rope as a part of your movement(such that you would no longer need to hold it while taking actions)
Even in the examples where this stuff actually matters - which are going to be relatively rare compared to turns where you just have to hit a guy, unless you find yourself holding off enemies with one-handed attacks while hanging from a cliff with the other hand much more often then I do - you're...still not actually getting any benefit from TWF, because the TWF bonus only applies to the bonus action attack, which you can only take with a different weapon held in a different hand from the one you took the attack action with.
The GWF player will deal more damage turn-to-turn in basically every standard combat scenario, and then in wierd situations where he for some reason only has one hand available he is perfectly capable of dropping/stowing the greatsword and drawing a longsword to fight one-handed with and will still be more capable than the TWF guy in that very narrow scenario because he'll have a longsword and the TWF guy likely only brought a shortsword/scimitar since you can't TWF with a longsword without the feat.
And if they do have feats, the GWF guy can still cleave people with his longsword but the TWF will get no benefit from his feat because he's not holding a weapon in each hand.
Many interesting combat scenarios involve places where you can utilize the off hand.
While you do indeed lose the off hand attack and benefit of TWF you do not lose the entirety of your action. I.E. you do slightly less damage normally in exchange for a lesser reduction in damage when it matters.
There are plenty of things that you can indeed not let go of because regrasping them is an action. Sometimes its not but many times it is. As is tying a rope around yourself etc. That is an action, strictly.
TWF is high damage plus a minor drop in damage when you want flexibility. GWF is a small advantage in damage in exchange for the flexibility.
Like, the math shows you really do not do all that much more damage, and maybe even less once you consider the ability to crit fish on extra attacks. That isn't to say that 2 handed weapons are bad, its just to say that they're not strictly better than TWF.
And if they do have feats, the GWF guy can still cleave people with his longsword but the TWF will get no benefit from his feat because he's not holding a weapon in each hand.
Sure... but a GWF longsword user loses damage compared to a TWF fighter (20.6 vs 22.5)... A dueling longsword user does as well (21 vs 22.5). Which well is a reasonable tradeoff for more utility just as the increased damage of a two handed weapon is a tradeoff for less utility
No, he doesn't, because the TWF guy isn't dealing 22.5 damage because TWF guy is not getting his bonus action attack unless he has weapons in both hands. TWF guy is getting 2 attacks for 1d6+4 and no bonus action attacks while GWF longsword guy is also using only one hand while dangling from a rope in the rain or whatever, but is getting 2 attacks for 1d8+4 and a bonus action attack every time he kills something.
TWF is substantially lower damage and has no advantage in 'flexibility'. You're trying to defend its value by spending paragraphs discussing the importance of having one hand available in scenarios that simply are not that common, and even then you're overlooking the fact that in those scenarios the GWF guy can swap to a one-handed weapon just as easily as the TWF guy can and if he does so he'll adapt those those scenarios better than the TWF guy will.
Eh in practice the GWF rarely uses their -5/+10 ability. Same with sharpshooter. Either due to regularly forgetting they can, or just not wanting to risk not hitting an enemy they don't know the stats on. Maybe 2 or 3 rounds in if they figure out the magic number on that enemy early on, but usually by the time they figure it out a normal round of attacking would suffice. But I've also been playing with the same folks for like 4 years so ill admit, maybe it's my players.
I think for a dual wielding hex blade go nuts multi class build I'd go with variant human, 2 level fighter, 5 levels hexblade, 3 levels swashbuckler, 6 levels paladin. Just use charisma for everything: attacks, saves, initiative, spell casting. You'd have decent defenses, a little healing, a little bit of skill box, and decent damage especially since you can spike it with sneak attack and smite.
All of this min-maxing/optimization talk is fine and dandy. But are you really ready to put in this much hassle for 1-3 extra damage per round? I'm not.
Fighting with a big fuckoff weapon is cool. Fucking with two swords is cool. Let a player go off and be rad however they want to be rad!
In my opinion the extra 1-point-whatever damage you get with GWF vs TWF is a minuscule price to pay for being a different flavor of awesome.
All of this min-maxing/optimization talk is fine and dandy. But are you really ready to put in this much hassle for 1-3 extra damage per round? I'm not.
Fighting with a big fuckoff weapon is cool. Fucking with two swords is cool. Let a player go off and be rad however they want to be rad!
In my opinion the extra 1-point-whatever damage you get with GWF vs TWF is a minuscule price to pay for being a different flavor of awesome.
This is basically the conclusion we always run to as optimization for 5e comes up. It is rarely necessary in this edition. It's why most of my builds go for some interesting gimmick of some kind rather than necessarily trying to bleed every point of damage I can from the system. Basicly in a white room calculation GWF + pole arm mastery is almost always the numerically superior choice unless you really play with the target ACs and hit point totals on the test dummies. In practice it hardly matters which one you choose because variability of encounters is going to change the math so much so regularly that the difference can become negligible.
Posts
Your math is off.
2x 2d6+4 averages 22. With the fighting style it does come to 26, my bad!
The duelist will average 21.
I think you'd agree those are all rather similar numbers.
TWF is great right up until 11 when fighters get their third attack, feats not accounted for.
The value of the bonus action depends on class and fight; hunter's mark/hex require something that won't die in 1 round, if it's a boss you're fine.
And again, it isn't "bad", it just doesn't do any of the fancy stuff you can do with certain feats that might not be allowed in your game.
It feels like there should be some greater benefit to taking the two weapon fighting style, if not in raw damage then at least in versatility. I know there is no main hand/offhand differentiation, so which weapon you're making the bonus action attack with could vary.
I think putting out ~15% less damage without feats and then falling even further behind if you take feats into account (which most games do) falls comfortably within the realm of "bad".
You also don't actually break even on hex after 1 round, or indeed at all - GWF can hex too, and doesn't have to give up any damage to do it, whereas TWF gives up 7.5 damage to cast the spell and then only gets 3.5 per turn back starting on the turn after the cast. You have to be hitting the same target for 3 turns just to recover the damage lost relative to the GWF by casting it in the first place, and by that point the GWF is about 10 points of damage ahead just based on its larger base damage. From then on, you're not actually even catching up the GWF option, just not falling further behind - the advantage you get from your 3rd hex trigger every turn just causes you to deal the same amount of damage the GWF was already dealing. But you stay at least 10 points behind forever, and then lose another 11 every time you have to retarget your hex. If you fight 3 monsters in a combat, by the end of it you'll basically have skipped a turn compared to going GWF.
And this math all assumes only 2 attacks; if we actually are looking at fighters with 3 attacks, the numbers get much, much worse for TWF.
It's bad, even without feats.
Not intended to read that way, except insofar as I am very tired of retreading the entire 'you don't have to min/max' tangent every time I have a conversation about the power level of a particular game piece.
If you're looking for a houserule to fit the flavor, I'd suggest lifting from Flurry of Blows and having TWF let you make 2 attacks as a bonus action rather than 1 attack+stat bonus. You're basically trading +4-5 damage from your stat bonus out for +3.5 from the extra d6 attack, but opening up better opportinities to take advantage of multiattack synergies like Hex and the Hexblade Curse.
Alternately you could cut into the anti-synergy those bonus-action effects have with TWF by having TWF let you make the extra attack for free instead of as a bonus action, so you could actually cast those synergy abilities without giving up your damage to do it.
Either way, though, you still run up against the problem that you can only use CHA to attack with one of your weapons, not both. You could houserule that away too, but I dunno how much you want to bend the mechanics for the flavor.
Mariliths are large-sized - theoretically a sword sized for a marilith being wielded by a human could be represented by a greatsword, if you wanted to try and get to the flavor that way.
If you are pact of the blade you can have 2 hex warrior weapons.
Your pact blade and the one physical one you can hit each day
Honestly for me, though I would probably bend the rules for flavor here, I'd say the more pressing issue would be bending the rules for bookkeeping. It's kind of tedious to be simultaneously wielding two attacks which have different bonuses to the die, ESPECIALLY if you choose to do something like give them the extra attack without a bonus action, or give them two attacks in exchange for the bonus action, since then you'd be more likely to want to roll that die alongside the first one, etc.
It'd be different if it was like, a sword and a hand crossbow or something, since those feel different when envisioning/imagining them, but it would feel real weird and kind of bad to me if I had a "good sword" and a "bad sword"
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
My dad introduced me to 2nd edition dnd when I was about 10-11 ish, maybe a year or two younger. It was me, my sister (who is 1.5yr younger than I am), and my mom, with my dad as DM, and each of the three of us piloted two characters. It wasn't that big of a deal when I did it, though I don't have clear enough memories to know how much help with the rules I needed. They are good memories though, so take that as an anecdotal vote for "it should be fine," especially considering how much simpler 5e is than AD&D
Let me try and replicate it:
The living web activates at the start of battle and rolls its own initiative. On its turn, the web rolls forward to entangle the closest enemy, moving up to 30 feet towards the target. When the web enters the target's space it and any other enemies within 5 feet of it must succeed on a DC 15 Dexterity saving throw or become restrained. Allies of the web are not affected.
Any member of the party can release the restrained creatures by using a bonus action to speak a command word. A target restrained by the living web can use an action to make a DC 15 Strength or Dexterity check (target's choice). On a success, the creature is no longer restrained by the web.
The living web has AC 20 and 20 hit points. It regains 1 hit point every 5 minutes as long as it has at least 1 hit point. If the web drops to 0 hit points, it is destroyed, but reforms after a short or long rest.
The above is primarily based on the Rope of Entanglement magic item.
Was it named Webster?
I think if was called the Living Web of Alrune.
GWF is NOT 2d6b2 its only 2d6 reroll 1 and 2's ONCE. You keep what you roll the second time. So the average is not 4.5 per d6 its 4.1666 per d6. And this is only when using a great sword, if using a longsword or something else its much weaker. And there are legitmiate reasons to use those weapons especially for Orcs and Barbarians (which technically only get 1d6 extra when critting with Greatsword even if i never play that way), or Eldrich Knights(which, while they should not TWF, still want a spare hand for somatic components)
Additionally for classes that aren't fighter (or are battlemaster if you're specifically crit fishing) the ability to get more attacks and so stack more bonus damage (like... hex for the Warlock we were talking about) is quite good.
Additionally, while you may have to stow your weapon, if you want to do anything with the off hand and still attack you still can while dual wielding. Which you cannot do while using a two handed weapon OR using a shield. If you're using a shield then you're at a 1 round doff action before you can attack and a two handed weapon simply cannot until you drop the other thing you're holding. This is a big one, because if the thing you're holding is important then you're done if you're using a greatsword
As it stands TWF isn't bad either just in terms of marginal value. It gives you +3 to 5 damage per turn. GWF gives you 1.33 damage per attack.(only if using a great sword). So the break-point is at 3 to 4 attacks. That is plenty fine considering that we are comparing the best case GWF to any case TWF.
So at 2 attacks the TWF fighter is at 3d6 + 12 = 22.5 Or 25.5 with +5 stat
The GWF fighter with a Greatsword is at 4d6(r2) +8 = 24.644 or 26.644 with +5 stat.
That isn't much of a difference considering the TWF fighter gets 50% more crit fishes (and attacks) to slam superiority die into AND still has options to do things when one of his hands is otherwise taken up by a thing not a weapon
With feats TWF falls behind... But not actually as much. You gain +.7 damage/attack and 1 AC(assuming you hit 70% of the time). So at 2 attacks you gain 21 damage and 1 AC. GWF gains +10 damage with -5 to attack and a bonus action that is sometimes relevant, lets ignore downing and say 5% relevant so its worth .5195 damage/attack(because you have a 5% probability of procing and lets be generous and say you have a 70% chance to hit)
The actual damage increase from GWF if you don't have advantage (or aren't slamming superiority die into the attack which may or may not be the best option i don't know) peaks at ~3.66 damage/attack*. If you have a 70% chance to hit then power attacking gives you 1.15 damage/attack. At 2 attacks you're actually behind on the TWF margin with 65% base hit chance and below. At 70% hit chance you will be slightly ahead in general; they gained 2.1 damage and 1 AC and you gained 2.81 damage. GWF is definitely better when considering advantage... but the TWF'er still crit fishes better. And considering that most people think that the defender fighting style is better than the GWF style when the GWF style gives 1.333 damage/attack and the defender style only gives 1 AC it looks a lot like the TWF came out ahead in the feats, what with only losing a margin of .7 damage for the 1 AC.
*within a range that assumes you never would actually hit on a 1 provided the hard miss chance aspects were ignored
Lots of numbers warning
- 1d6+4, 1d6+4, 1d6+4, +7 to hit, 16 AC in studded leather
- 60% chance to hit AC 16
- 22.5 avg dpr (13.5 w/ miss chance)
2 weapon fighter, lvl 6, 20 dex, no feat, 2wpn fighting style- 1d6+5, 1d6+5, 1d6+5, +8 to hit, 17 ac in studded leather
- 65% chance to hit AC 16
- 25.5 avg dpr (16.58 w/ miss chance)
2 weapon fighter, lvl 8, 20 dex, dual wielder, 2wpn fighting style- 1d8+5, 1d8+5, 1d8+5, +8 to hit, 17 AC in studded leather
- 65% chance to hit AC 16
- 28.5 avg dpr (18.525 w/ miss chance)
2 weapon fighter, lvl 11, 20 dex, dual wielder, 2wpn fighting styleGreat weapon fighter, lvl 5, 18 str, no feats, great weapon fighting style
- 2d6+4, 2d6+4, +7 to hit, 17 AC in splint
- 60% chance to hit AC 16
- 24.66 avg dpr (14.8 w/ miss chance)
Great weapon fighter, lvl 6, 20 str, no feats, great weapon fighting style- 2d6+5, 2d6+5, +8 to hit, 17 AC in splint
- 65% chance to hit AC 16
- 26.66 avg dpr (17.24 w/ miss chance)
Great weapon fighter, lvl 8, 20 str, GWM, great weapon figting style- 2d6+15, 2d6+15, +3 to hit, 17 AC in splint (18 if plate)
- 40% chance to hit AC 16 (65% w/o GWM)
- 46.66 avg dpr (18.66 w/ miss chance)
- 26.66 avg dpr (17.33 w/ miss chance, no GWM)
- extra attack on crit adds aprox 1.17 to avg w/ GWM
- extra attack on crit adds aprox 0.67 to avg w/o GWM
- 47.83 avg dpr (19.13 w/ miss chance)
- 27.33 avg dpr (17.76 w/ miss chance, no GWM)
Great weapon fighter, lvl 11, 20 str, GWM, great weapon fighting styleMath supplied here shows only an increase of 1.33 damage with great weapon fighting style and a greatsword, going from an average of 7 to 8.33
Now, these numbers go completely out of wack and in favor of the GWM with things like Bless or Advantage in the mix, and doesn't take into account what other things you might like to do with a Bonus Action. But Bonus Actions aren't guaranteed, and are mostly class dependent.
With magic items, getting two +2 handaxes is going to give a larger damage increase than a single +2 maul, as you get the +2 damage on an addition hit. Other options like a Barbarian's Rage will add damage, and Hunter's Mark and Hex are things that also exist. With the handaxe example, you also have the option to throw them for turns where you're unable to engage in melee combat.
Try DnD beyond. It's a website that first party, and have all the published options. Only disadvantage is that if your already bought the books physically there is no way to account for it.
Weapons are actually a big downside of TWF since you can only attune to 3 items total.
Edit: in general I find that the flexibility of a long sword or TWF tends to do better (since now the tank can effectively do non-combat things... which is who you want doing these things) than using a 2 handed weapon. But I am a sticer for my own action and hand economy. Even when using a 2 hander the damage increase is less than it would seem compared to TWF.
https://sageadvice.eu/2017/03/02/2-weapon-casting/
But you cannot keep holding onto that thing..
Like if it’s your ally you’re dragging to safety.
Or it’s the wheel of a ship you’re holding steady.
Or the reigns of a horse.
Or a chest full of treasure.
Or a rope over the edge of a cliff.
Drag your ally, attack. Start dragging again on your next turn. Issue if you need to attack during your movement or something is attempting to drag them in another direction. Only actually an issue during the first turn, you lost 1 round of attacks to do it completely proper in subsequent rounds
Assuming you are already holding the wheel, you attack then go back to holding the wheel. Again, if you aren't holding the wheel already you will lose 1 round of attacks.
You can control a mount with your legs, nothing says you have to have a free hand. A wagon would possibly run into issue though. It all depends on when you started holding the reigns,
A chest full of treasure is something you'd be holding in both hands anyway, unless you're dragging it, then see the first example.
Now here's one that would apply, assuming you were the one over the cliff. Otherwise, just tie the rope around yourself (I learned how to tie the bowline around myself 1 handed in the scouts, a simple knot would be easier).
The GWF player will deal more damage turn-to-turn in basically every standard combat scenario, and then in wierd situations where he for some reason only has one hand available he is perfectly capable of dropping/stowing the greatsword and drawing a longsword to fight one-handed with and will still be more capable than the TWF guy in that very narrow scenario because he'll have a longsword and the TWF guy likely only brought a shortsword/scimitar since you can't TWF with a longsword without the feat.
And if they do have feats, the GWF guy can still cleave people with his longsword but the TWF will get no benefit from his feat because he's not holding a weapon in each hand.
They'll be more fragile. If things go badly for a party of 4 by means of an unlucky roll then they still have 3 folks and 3 sets of actions. They're only down 25% because of an unlucky roll. For a party of 2 if one of them gets unlucky they're down 50% of their resources. They'll have a harder time recovering from those sorts of situations.
Depends on the part composition and how flexible the game you're playing is.
I mean, a party of 4 can realistically have a smashy guy, a healy guy, a traps guy and a blasty guy (presumably one of them doing double duty as the talky guy). So, if they're in a dungeon designed for that kind of party, each character should have a moment or two to shine where they're the one who can do the thing.
The party of two have to either multi task or do without.
If you're adjusting the game on the fly to match the group, then yeah, party size doesn't matter. Just keep in mind what the party can do and what will probably result in them getting killed while you're assembling your encounters..
Many interesting combat scenarios involve places where you can utilize the off hand.
While you do indeed lose the off hand attack and benefit of TWF you do not lose the entirety of your action. I.E. you do slightly less damage normally in exchange for a lesser reduction in damage when it matters.
There are plenty of things that you can indeed not let go of because regrasping them is an action. Sometimes its not but many times it is. As is tying a rope around yourself etc. That is an action, strictly.
TWF is high damage plus a minor drop in damage when you want flexibility. GWF is a small advantage in damage in exchange for the flexibility.
Like, the math shows you really do not do all that much more damage, and maybe even less once you consider the ability to crit fish on extra attacks. That isn't to say that 2 handed weapons are bad, its just to say that they're not strictly better than TWF.
Sure... but a GWF longsword user loses damage compared to a TWF fighter (20.6 vs 22.5)... A dueling longsword user does as well (21 vs 22.5). Which well is a reasonable tradeoff for more utility just as the increased damage of a two handed weapon is a tradeoff for less utility
Emphasis mine. Otherwise it's an Item Interaction, of which you get one free per turn. I said earlier, I learned how to tie a bowline around myself one handed in the scouts, as a rescue procedure. But even if you couldn't tie a knot, wrapping it around yourself a couple times would accomplish much the same result. Even then, if it take an Action to do, you're not Attacking that turn anyway so having the weapon out doesn't mean much.
I have never met a DM that would allow you to tie a rope as a part of your movement(such that you would no longer need to hold it while taking actions)
No, he doesn't, because the TWF guy isn't dealing 22.5 damage because TWF guy is not getting his bonus action attack unless he has weapons in both hands. TWF guy is getting 2 attacks for 1d6+4 and no bonus action attacks while GWF longsword guy is also using only one hand while dangling from a rope in the rain or whatever, but is getting 2 attacks for 1d8+4 and a bonus action attack every time he kills something.
TWF is substantially lower damage and has no advantage in 'flexibility'. You're trying to defend its value by spending paragraphs discussing the importance of having one hand available in scenarios that simply are not that common, and even then you're overlooking the fact that in those scenarios the GWF guy can swap to a one-handed weapon just as easily as the TWF guy can and if he does so he'll adapt those those scenarios better than the TWF guy will.
I think for a dual wielding hex blade go nuts multi class build I'd go with variant human, 2 level fighter, 5 levels hexblade, 3 levels swashbuckler, 6 levels paladin. Just use charisma for everything: attacks, saves, initiative, spell casting. You'd have decent defenses, a little healing, a little bit of skill box, and decent damage especially since you can spike it with sneak attack and smite.
Fighting with a big fuckoff weapon is cool. Fucking with two swords is cool. Let a player go off and be rad however they want to be rad!
In my opinion the extra 1-point-whatever damage you get with GWF vs TWF is a minuscule price to pay for being a different flavor of awesome.
This is basically the conclusion we always run to as optimization for 5e comes up. It is rarely necessary in this edition. It's why most of my builds go for some interesting gimmick of some kind rather than necessarily trying to bleed every point of damage I can from the system. Basicly in a white room calculation GWF + pole arm mastery is almost always the numerically superior choice unless you really play with the target ACs and hit point totals on the test dummies. In practice it hardly matters which one you choose because variability of encounters is going to change the math so much so regularly that the difference can become negligible.