# 2 weapons vs. 2 handed weapon vs. weapon and shield



## Sadrik (Aug 31, 2012)

So which one is better? We really only have two melee characters rogues and fighters so far but which is better at each strategy? And why?


----------



## thewok (Aug 31, 2012)

Right now, two-weapon fighting and two-handers are roughly equivalent damage, but DR works twice as well against dual wielders.  Depending on the actual numbers, two-weapon fighting suffers from rounding taking away some damage, as well, possibly a full point per round.  It seems to me that two-handers are just better all around for damage.  The one advantage two-weapons has over two-handers is the extra chance to hit per round.

I've always viewed sword and board as a defensive setup, trading possible damage for more defenses.  Unless, of course, you can find a d12 one-hander somewhere.

As for what's better for which class, I can only go by what I would do.  For a fighter focused on damage, I'd use a two-hander.  For a rogue, I'd use a single weapon since sneak attack is once per round, and a second attack wouldn't get that damage bonus.


----------



## Ultimatecalibur (Aug 31, 2012)

Depending on how your DM interprets the two-weapon fighting rules effects on Deadly Strike and Sneak Attack two-weapon fighting can deal more or less average damage per round than using a two-handed weapon.

The following formula use a 5th level Fighter with 17 Str(+3) attacking a target with an AC of 17 using Deadly Strike for full damage.

Two-handed weapon(Greatsword)
.5(6.5+3+9)=9.25

Two Weapon Fighting(2xRapier/Scimitar/Shortsword and DS and SA are halved)
0.5((3.5+3+9)/2)+.25((7+6+9)/2)=6.625

Two Weapon Fighting(2xRapier/Scimitar/Shortsword and DS and SA are not halved)
0.5*((3.5+3)/2+9)+.25*((7+6)/2+9)=10


----------



## slobo777 (Aug 31, 2012)

Ultimatecalibur said:


> Depending on how your DM interprets the two-weapon fighting rules effects on Deadly Strike and Sneak Attack two-weapon fighting can deal more or less average damage per round than using a two-handed weapon.
> 
> The following formula use a 5th level Fighter with 17 Str(+3) attacking a target with an AC of 17 using Deadly Strike for full damage.
> 
> ...




Based on the text in the playtest material: "All the damage of each of these attacks is halved"

The first word is "all", and it's "of these attacks", so you'd have to mentally allocate the DS and SA damage to_ not _be part of the attack to arrive at adding them on without halving them. Which seems a bit willful and convoluted . . .

However, I expect the wording and final version of dual wielding could well change.

I'd much prefer to avoid 3.5 (and especially 4E's) assumption that we all want to be lawyers and argue endlessly about what an "attack" really is in canonical form within the game. Please WotC, in the more refined versions of the text, clarify statements like "all damage is halved" with some examples including combinations with other abilities. I want to play D&D, and I want the designers to spend a little more time spelling out what they meant so I don't need to.

Edit: DPR doesn't capture important considerations such as the spread of likely damage. The two-weapon attacker has a wider spread of outcomes where they make at least one hit, doing a little damage a lot more often than the two-handed user. This makes no difference when fighting creatures with large amounts of hit points. In the playtest however, a lot of creatures will end up on the edge of being taken down within 1 or 2 hits. That makes amount of damage done, especially at low levels, less of a concern than simply hitting. However, two weapon fighting, as written, will scale to high levels badly unless it is given further boosts to offset a lower DPR.


----------



## Scipio202 (Aug 31, 2012)

At this point there seem to be only two major benefits of two-weapon fighting:
1) if you're fighting lots of very low hp monsters
2) if you have non-damaging on-hit effects.

There aren't a lot of examples of (2) right now, the major one is that a fighter with two CS dice could knock prone or knock back two different monsters in one round with 2WF.  If more status effects are introduced 2WF will start to look better.


----------



## Salamandyr (Aug 31, 2012)

Currently two handed fighting does the most damage, and two weapon and weapon and shield do about the same amount of _average_ damage, with the maximum damage of the two weapon fighter being less, and making up for it because of higher accuracy.

The reason for that is, the two weapon fighter is restricted to less damaging weapons.  So the two handed fighter rolls d12's, the weapon and shield fighter rolls d8's, and the 2 weapon fighter rolls d6's twice and divides the results by 2 (sucks when he rolls an odd number).

And it's not very clear what happens to extra dice,  like from expertise or sneak attack, when they're applied by a two weapon fighter.

Defense-wise, it's about what you'd expect.  The two weapon fighter is behind the weapon and shield fighter, and the two weapon fighter lags until 3rd level when he matches the weapon and shield fighter.  If we assume magic shields exist, then the two weapon fighter continues to lag.

Lesson for D&D Next...don't use two weapons.


----------



## slobo777 (Aug 31, 2012)

Scipio202 said:


> At this point there seem to be only two major benefits of two-weapon fighting:
> 1) if you're fighting lots of very low hp monsters
> 2) if you have non-damaging on-hit effects.
> 
> There aren't a lot of examples of (2) right now, the major one is that a fighter with two CS dice could knock prone or knock back two different monsters in one round with 2WF.  If more status effects are introduced 2WF will start to look better.




Point (1) can be extended a little - it's what I'd call an "edge effect". Basically if a large enough percentage of the time, enemies are on low (in this context from 1 to 4) hit points, then how hard you hit is less relevent, and how often is more so. That can happen in more situations than the creatures starting at 1-4 hp, although of course that's the most obvious point where current two-weapon fighting is better.

This also means that a two character team, with one specialisting in hitting single targets hard, the other in hitting multiple targets less hard, is a better _team_-level optimisation than two simpler heavy-hitters. Edit: _Although this might not be true with the current numbers - I'd need to check_.


----------



## MarkB (Aug 31, 2012)

Scipio202 said:


> At this point there seem to be only two major benefits of two-weapon fighting:
> 1) if you're fighting lots of very low hp monsters
> 2) if you have non-damaging on-hit effects.
> 
> There aren't a lot of examples of (2) right now, the major one is that a fighter with two CS dice could knock prone or knock back two different monsters in one round with 2WF.




A Fighter with one CS die can also make both attacks against one monster to significantly improve his odds of knocking it prone.


----------



## Derren (Aug 31, 2012)

Imo the fighting styles should not be balanced around doing equal damage but around the better fighting style requiring more feats to become effective.

No investment -> sword and shield is best
slight investment -> Two handed weapons do more damage with a little loss of AC compared to shield.
big investment -> two weapons should do more damage than two handed weapons without additional penalties.


----------



## slobo777 (Aug 31, 2012)

Derren said:


> Imo the fighting styles should not be balanced around doing equal damage but around the better fighting style requiring more feats to become effective.
> 
> No investment -> sword and shield is best
> slight investment -> Two handed weapons do more damage with a little loss of AC compared to shield.
> big investment -> two weapons should do more damage than two handed weapons without additional penalties.




That logic does of course depend on what alternative feat options there are for the sword-and-shield and 2-hander fighters. Because once they've met your "no investment" and "slight investment" levels, what are they going to do? Are you suggesting those builds should have no access to anything that improves their damage?

I'd rather see mechanical differences crop up that make the styles feel different, and not focus too much on damage. I think that a shield user should have best defense, and that 2-handers and dual wielders should get something _different _to each other that makes them better offensively.

Rolling twice to hit is not my favourite mechanic for dual wielding (it's far too literal, and IMO ignores the alleged abstractions in a D&D attack roll), but it does have the advantage as a simple approach that reminds you that the character has two weapons.

What would I do? Give 2-handed attackers + a little damage (just built into the weapon stats as it is now), and dual wielders the choice of fighting offensively (+1 to hit) or defensively (+1 to AC) on their turn. Feat chains could improve one or other (or both) of these options. Note the +1 to AC is _not_ as good as a sword+shield, because there is a compromise on damage to dual wield.


----------



## Derren (Aug 31, 2012)

slobo777 said:


> That logic does of course depend on what alternative feat options there are for the sword-and-shield and 2-hander fighters. Because once they've met your "no investment" and "slight investment" levels, what are they going to do? Are you suggesting those builds should have no access to anything that improves their damage?




Yes.
Spend the feats elsewhere.


----------



## Steely_Dan (Aug 31, 2012)

Derren said:


> Yes.
> Spend the feats elsewhere.




On things like?


----------



## Scipio202 (Aug 31, 2012)

*Other possible benefits for 2WF*

Overall I agree with the designers' goal of no letting two-weapon fighting double a character's damage output.  The half-damage approach does that, but feels a bit lackluster.  I wonder if additional benefits that don't lead to an every-round bump in damage might make 2WF more appealing.  Two options come to mind, both inspired by having two threatening weapons:

1) 2WF gives a second reaction
2) 2WF gives larger reach for Opportunity Attacks

(1) could increase damage output depending on how often OA oppotunities occur.  If you want to focus on versatility rather than damage, you could still cap it at one OA - but I think that makes things too complicated.  For (2), note that this is in some sense the opposite of "reach" weapons - reach weapons only have extra reach on your turn, and not for OAs.  (2) would give 2WF extra reach on OAs, but not for regular attacks.


----------



## Derren (Aug 31, 2012)

Steely_Dan said:


> On things like?




Armor feats, social feats, ranged weapons, etc.
If there is nothing else to choose from you don't need feats at all. And the "One class one weapon" design has to die anyway.


----------



## Salamandyr (Sep 1, 2012)

So I figured up average damage for a human character (so no increased damage die) with an 18 in their primary stat.  I assumed a +7 attack bonus against an AC of 15 which seems to be pretty standard.  That means an overall 65% chance to hit.  

Average damage for 

Dual wielder w/ 2 rapiers 2 attacks at 1d6+4/2 avg damage 4.7 

Longsword & shield 1 attack at 1d8+4 avg damage 5.7

Greatsword 1d12+4 avg damage 7.1

Max damage on critical was included. 

Dual wielding loses out 2 different ways.  It has a smaller damage die, and because of division mechanics, the odds of rolling minimum damage are increased.  The range of possible damage results is 2,3,3,4,4, or 5.

The one advantage that dual wielding has is that the odds of successfully hitting your opponent _at_ _least_ one time is  87.75%.  But even with your higher accuracy, your average damage is still the lowest of the 3 options.


----------



## MarkB (Sep 1, 2012)

Given that dual-wielding as it stands doesn't stack up well against the alternatives, I do hope they revise it to not require a feat for entry. It seems clear that there wouldn't be anything unbalancing about allowing people to dual-wield for 'free'.


----------



## Steely_Dan (Sep 1, 2012)

Derren said:


> Armor feats, social feats, ranged weapons, etc.
> If there is nothing else to choose from you don't need feats at all. And the "One class one weapon" design has to die anyway.





This brings up to me, the crux of the matter, are Feats necessary?


----------



## Derren (Sep 1, 2012)

Steely_Dan said:


> This brings up to me, the crux of the matter, are Feats necessary?




If you want to have choice then yes.
If there is only one way to play then not.


----------



## slobo777 (Sep 1, 2012)

Steely_Dan said:


> This brings up to me, the crux of the matter, are Feats necessary?




_Necessary in general?_  No, but they are movable, small units of character build customisation. I think they were one of the better changes moving from 2e to 3e. And I believe they are popular with 3e and 4e players.

By bundling feats into Specialisations, WotC are trying to find the compromise position between players wanting to spend more time customising their character mechanically, or more time on other things.

_Necessary for dual wielding?_ No, but the core would have to swallow up the rules in the feat description, or it would need to become a class feature for e.g. Ranger. 

It's a bit of a value judgement to decide whether a popular choice that needs a small tweak to work mechanically (i.e uses up a paragraph of rules text, like dual wielding) should be a feat or in the core.


----------



## Steely_Dan (Sep 1, 2012)

Derren said:


> If you want to have choice then yes.
> If there is only one way to play then not.





That's cool, I just want the choice: to Feat, or not to Feat?!

I still don't feel/think (experienced, etc) that 3rd or 4th got it right.


----------



## Scipio202 (Sep 1, 2012)

RE increased chance to knock one target prone with 2WF.

There is actually a fair bit of hidden damage there if you think of not just the fighter's damage but the rest of the party's damage too.  The obvious one is an extra 15-25% chance to turn on the rogue's sneak attack dice, but also increase the chance for clerics to hit with crusader's strike and inflict wounds, or wizards/sorcerers to hit with ghoul's touch or vampiric touch.


----------



## Sadrik (Sep 1, 2012)

All bonus damage is halved too. So sneak attack 2wf looks way sub optimal. I think 2 hander is the only way. Sword and board is weak too as the shield only gives +1. The +1 ac does not carry enough weight to the much larger damage boost. Also the other wacky weapon damage thing is the favored weapons of the non-humans. I conceptually do not like favored weapons hard coded in the race. Is it not enough to say that the DM could say dwarves use hammers and axes, elves use swords and bows, without the system coming out and requiring it. This does go a bit into the races ability to deal damage. These are sort of like the favored class restrictions of third edition. They're sort of like neat I get this bonus but really it is neat I get this penalty that I can't use any other weapons. Not down with that concept. So a dwarf does 1D12 with their halberd. I halfling with two weapon fighting does 1d8 with their short swords, halved round down.


----------



## Scipio202 (Sep 1, 2012)

What I meant was a 2WF fighter knocking an enemy prone can more often enable a sneak attack from any (presumably non-2WF) rogue in the party, which can be a lot of extra damage output overall.


----------



## Sadrik (Sep 1, 2012)

Another strange consideration is two weapon fighting essentially gives all creatures you fight "resistance" to your damage. Not sure if I like that. Because when you go against something that already has resistance what do you do double resistance?


----------



## marelion (Sep 1, 2012)

One advantage of TWF has not come up yet: It`s one more weapion enchantment slot. There is the problem with resistances, but when you are bringing two axes to the fight odds are better one of them IS going to hurt the bad guy. And I honestly do not see why fighting with two weapons should inherently create a better or equal damage output compared to twohanded weapons. You already get to roll twice for attack. I would consider this a major goodie of a TWF-style. TWF could indeed be a nichè for super-accurate characters who invest into abilities that trigger on a hit while the big bruisers bring the big weapons to the fight.   I´m cool with the design deceission to turn the potency of dual-wielding down a bit. Curve out another nichè, the one of hyper-accuracy-dependant character builds and call it a day. Sword and Board for defense, Twohanders for damage and Dual-Wielding for accuracy, I like the sound of that  It`s plain and it`s simple, just like it should be.


----------



## Steely_Dan (Sep 2, 2012)

slobo777 said:


> _Necessary for dual wielding?_ No, but the core would have to swallow up the rules in the feat description, or it would need to become a class feature for e.g. Ranger.





Please, god, no.

I detest the dual-wileding, pigeonholing shtick of the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th Ed Ranger.


----------

