by Guy Fullerton
Version 1.1.1. Revised on June 19, 2001
Back to Guy's Page
Long after they've built and played a character, some people discover that their character's preferred fighting method of attacking with two weapons is less effective than other fighting methods. There have been numerous posts on message boards with complaints like:
"My elven fighter spent two feats to be able to fight with two weapons effectively, but the other fighter in the party (a dwarf that wields a greataxe) always does more damage. It doesn't seem fair! I spent those two feats, and the dwarf didn't have to spend anything on his fighting style, so my character should be better! Right? Two-weapon fighting really got the shaft!" - Anyonymous
Indeed, attacking with two weapons (or using a double weapon) is often less effective than the other major fighting styles: Using both a one-handed weapon and a shield, or using a two-handed weapon. Herein, you will discover the statistical reasons why attacking with two weapons is often an inferior fighting style, how it can be a superior fighting style, and why it is balanced at a cost of two feats.
Compared to attacking with a two-handed weapon, attacking with two weapons is less efficient at dealing damage or avoiding damage on any round that you need to move more than 5 ft.
You can only make two (or more) attacks in a round if you take the Full Attack action. This only allows at most 5 feet of movement; you cannot otherwise move or take any move-equivalent actions in conjunction with a Full Attack. On any round when you must move to your opponent (or do some other move equivalent action), you will not be able to take a Full Attack and are therefore limited to striking just once with just one of your weapons.
That's not such a big deal for a combatant that uses a two-handed weapon (say a greatsword), since your single attack will be at least 2d6 points of damage. That's also not such a big deal with a one-handed weapon (say a longsword) & shield, since you will do 1d8 damage and still get your shield bonus to AC. In fact, until their Base Attack Bonus is high enough to generate multiple attacks, characters who use those two styles would only be able to get one attack anyway. Such characters never need to do a full attack to maximize their damage output.
However, a combatant that uses two weapons must take the Full Attack action to maximize his damage output. Whenever a combatant with two weapons needs to move to his opponent, he only gets one of his attacks (for 1d8 points of damage, probably) and does not get a shield bonus (since he probably isn't carrying a shield). That's roughly half as effective as he could be if he had been able to take a Full Attack.
Many combat situations require considerable movement or limit you to partial actions, and those situations therefore reduce the effectiveness of attacking with two weapons.
A conventional fighter that attacks with two weapons pays a high price for his just slightly increased damage output on rounds when he can Full Attack. Even worse, this slight damage advantage only applies against targets with relatively low ACs.
An optimal situation for a fighter with two weapons is often specialization with a pair of shortswords. For argument's sake, the fighter is 5th-level, has a 16 strength, has masterwork weapons, has no magic bonuses to attack or damage, and has the following relevant feats: Weapon Focus (shortsword), Weapon Specialization (shortsword), Ambidexterity, and Two-Weapon Fighting. His primary shortsword does 1d6+5 points of damage on a successful hit, and the secondary one does 1d6+3. On rounds when he can make a Full Attack, he has a damage potential of 2d6+8 points of damage. His attack bonus for each shortsword is +8 (+5 BAB, +3 Str, +1 masterwork, +1 Weapon Focus, -2 two-weapons).
Assuming he is facing a combatant with AC 15, the dual-shortsword fighter will do an average of 10.5 points of damage per round (not counting criticals). Here's the math for those with the inclination to follow:
(70% chance of 1d6+5 damage) + (70% chance of 1d6+3 damage) =
(0.70 x 8.5) + (0.70 x 6.5) =
5.95 + 4.55 =
10.5 points of damage per round
An optimal situation for a fighter with a two-handed weapon is often specialization with a greatsword. For argument's sake, the fighter is identical to the one above, except he has the following feats: Weapon Focus (greatsword) and Weapon Specialization (greatsword). His greatsword does 2d6+6 points of damage on a successful hit. His attack bonus is +10 (+5 BAB, +3 Str, +1 masterwork, +1 Weapon Focus).
Assuming he is facing a combatant with AC 15, the greatsword fighter will do an average of 10.4 points of damage per round (not counting criticals):
80% chance of 2d6+6 damage =
0.80 x 13 =
10.4 points of damage per round
In that situation, the dual-shortsword fighter does an average of 0.1 point more damage per round. As the AC of the foe gets lower, the dual-shortsword fighter has a bigger advantage, but how often will he fight foes with AC lower than 15? As the AC gets higher, the greatsword fighter grabs a clear advantage. In fact, versus an AC of 20, the greatsword fighter does an average of 0.4 points more damage per round than the dual-shortsword fighter.
To add insult to injury, remember that the dual-shortsword fighter had to spend two more feats to get his ever-so-slight advantage versus low ACs. Quite a price, eh? I didn't even give the greatsword fighter two feats to match. If I had, the greatsword fighter could have been even more effective than the examples showed.
A fighter that attacks with two weapons gets less payoff at 6th-level (and beyond) from multiple attacks due to a high base attack bonus.
At 6th-level, our dual-shortsword fighter would get three attacks in one round: 2 with the primary shortsword and one with the secondary. His attack bonuses would be +9/+9/+4. Against the same AC 15 foe, he will do an average of 15.5 points of damage per round:
(75% chance of 1d6+5 damage) + (75% chance of 1d6+3 damage) + (50% chance of 1d6+5 damage) =
(0.75 x 8.5) + (0.75 x 6.5) + (0.50 x 8.5) =
6.375 + 4.875 + 4.25 =
15.5 points of damage per round
At 6th-level, our greatsword fighter would get two attacks. His attack bonuses would be +11/+6. Against the AC 15 foe, he will do an average of 15.6 points of damage per round.
(85% chance of 2d6+6 damage) + (60% chance of 2d6+6 damage) =
(0.85 x 13) + (0.60 x 13) =
11.05 + 7.8 =
18.85 points of damage per round
As if that's not a huge enough advantage for the greatsword fighter, the gap gets even wider as his BAB allows three or four attacks as he increases in level.
You may be tempted to bring the Improved Two-Weapon Fighting feat into the discussion. After all, it would seem to equalize things somewhat considering that it would give the shortsword fighter four attacks when the greatsword fighter gets only two. The soonest the dual-shortsword fighter could take Improved Two-Weapon Fighting is 9th-level, so let's make the examples a tad more realistic for their level and give their foe an AC 18.
At 9th-level, our dual-shortsword fighter gets four attacks at +12/+12/+7/+7. Against an AC 18 foe, he does an average of 18.75 points of damage per round:
(75% chance of 1d6+5 damage) + (75% chance of 1d6+3 damage) + (50% chance of 1d6+5 damage) + (50% chance of 1d6+3 damage) =
(0.75 x 8.5) + (0.75 x 6.5) + (0.50 x 8.5) + (0.50 x 6.5) =
6.375 + 4.875 + 4.25 + 3.25 =
18.75 points of damage per round
At 9th-level, our greatsword fighter gets two attacks at +14/+9. Against an AC 18 foe, he does an average of 18.85 points of damage per round:
(85% chance of 2d6+6 damage) + (60% chance of 2d6+6 damage) =
(0.85 x 13) + (0.60 x 13) =
11.05 + 7.8 =
18.85 points of damage per round
Improved Two-Weapon Fighting does make things a bit more equal, but it doesn't close the damage gap completely and it costs another feat that the greatsword fighter will surely use to increase his own damage-dealing capability.
At this point, you are probably asking, "why the heck did they make two-weapon fighting suck, particularly when you have to spend at least two feats to do it?"
The answer is that they didn't make two-weapon fighting suck. It is ineffective for you simply because you aren't using it properly. When used effectively, attacking with two weapons totally blows the other styles out of the water. It is so good that spending two feats seems cheap compared to the power you get in return.
Attacking with two weapons is an excellent choice whenever you can generate enough bonus damage on every attack to outweigh the fact that you are rolling fewer damage dice for the weapon itself. The more bonus damage the better!
One of the best sources of bonus damage is from Sneak Attack. Imagine a 5th-level rogue (Str 12) that attacks with a masterwork greatsword. If she gets in flanking position, she can turn her one attack into a Sneak Attack. With a total attack bonus of +7, no relevant feats, no magic bonuses to attack or damage, and versus an AC 15 foe, she'll do an average of 12.025 points of damage per round:
65% chance of 2d6+1+3d6 damage =
0.65 x 18.5 =
12.025 points of damage per round
If the same rogue has Ambidexterity, Two-Weapon Fighting, wields a pair of masterwork shortswords (each with a total attack bonus of +5), and flanks the same AC 15 target, she'll do an average of 15.95 points of damage per round:
(55% chance of 1d6+1+3d6 damage) + (55% chance of 1d6+3d6 damage) =
(0.55 x 15) + (0.55 x 14) =
8.25 + 7.7
15.95 points of damage per round
That's almost four more points of damage per round when attacking with two weapons. As the rogue's Sneak Attack damage increases, so does the superiority of her dual-wielding ability. At 11th-level, the average damage per round increase is around 10 points, depending on the foe's AC. That is why it costs two feats to become good at attacking with two weapons.
While a rogue's sneak attack is one of the best ways to generate bonus damage, there are other less class-dependent ways: Flaming/frost/shock weapons, Power Attack, certain spells, etc. Though they present a less compelling reason to attack with two weapons, they sometimes prove compelling enough to make it worthwhile.
Sometimes you are not trying to damage your foe. You might want to trip, disarm, or bull rush him. In these cases, the raw amount of damage you inflict isn't so important as the number of attacks you can make. You might fail to disarm him on the first try, but you might succeed on the second. In these cases, the fact that you are attacking with two weapons means you get one additional chance to achieve your effect. This may not be a particularly cool reason for dual wielding, but it is a benefit of dual wielding nonetheless.
In all of the examples so far, I've been comparing a dual wielding character to one that wields a two-handed weapon. Those two fighting styles most clearly show off my points. I could have thrown a third character into the examples; he'd fight with a one-handed weapon and use a shield. I didn't bother, since everybody understands the advantages and disadvantages of fighting with a weapon and shield compared to the other two styles: A weapon and shield combatant might do a bit less damage, but his AC is going to be much higher, particularly if he's got a magic shield.
One lesser-used fighting style involves a weapon & shield combatant that has the Ambidexterity and Two-Weapon Fighting feats. Along with his conventional one-handed weapon, he fights with a spiked shield. On rounds when he cannot take a Full Attack, or if he needs his shield's bonus to AC, he attacks with just his one-handed weapon. In this way, he is a plain-old weapon and shield combatant, with all the standard advantages.
However, on rounds when he doesn't need to worry about his AC (when he and two of his friends surround a monster that only has one attack), or if he needs a bit of extra punch (when the foe must be taken down right now), he can choose to attack with both his one-handed weapon and his spiked shield.
That sort of flexibility is a often a great reason to choose the Ambidexterity and Two-Weapon Fighting feats. In fact, I recommend this technique to any player of a ranger PC; you'll discover that your character's survivability increases dramatically when you have greater control over his attack and AC balance.
Similarly, you can carry a buckler on the same arm as your more conventional secondary weapon. This reduces the AC bonus somewhat, and you'll suffer an additional -1 penalty to your off-hand attack rolls, but a conventional weapon is usually lighter and does more damage (or has better critical characteristics) compared a spiked shield.
One thing you might have noticed is that all my examples of bad dual wielding involves a fighter. Most of the examples of good dual wielding involves a rogue. That illustrates my final point:
For the typical fighter or barbarian (who relies on high strength to deliver lots of damage in a round), attacking with two weapons is a poor choice. For that style of combatant, Ambidexterity and Two-Weapon fighting are poor choices for feats. If you are tempted to pick them anyway, be forewarned: Unless you plan on following some of my examples of how to dual wield effectively, you will probably end saying the same thing Anonymous did, and you've got nobody to blame but yourself.
You may be tempted to blame the game designers. You may think that you were cheated by selecting Ambidexterity and Two-Weapon Fighting. However, you must always remember that no two feats were created equally, and that not all feats and ability choices are as cool for all characters. Would you pity the player that chose Combat Reflexes for his 10 Dex PC? Would you pity the player who chose Armor Proficiency (Light, Medium, and Heavy) for his wizard PC? Would you pity the player who chose Enlarge Spell for his sorcerer PC that only had touch spells? Probably not.
Therefore, please don't whine about how "broken" two-weapon fighting is. I will give you no sympathy when you tell me how badly it "got the shaft." I'll ignore you if you tell me that your PC "deserves more power from his Ambidexterity and Two-Weapon Fighting feats." After reading this, you should know how to dual-wield effectively, so start doing it!
Okay, that last paragraph was harsh. I admit it. Now you get to see my kind side.
What if you are in the same boat as Anonymous? Your dual-wielding fighter just isn't as effective as another fighter in the party. Your character is already 7th-level, and it doesn't look like you're going to start a new campaign for a while. Are you really stuck with two inferior feats? What can you do to make things better? Here are some things which might help:
Ask your DM if she'll let you trade your feats for something else. Show her this article if you need to. A sympathetic DM will probably let you swap them for something more appropriate to your character.
Instead of wielding two conventional one-handed weapons, start using a spiked shield in your off-hand. Your AC will thank you for it.
Multiclass into Rogue for a few levels. As little as 2d6 worth of Sneak Attack damage may end up tilting the balance of power back in your favor.
Change the way Ambidexterity, Two-Weapon Fighting, and/or the penalties for dual wielding works. I wouldn't let you do this in any of my campaigns, but maybe you can pull the wool over your DM's eyes.
What if you're not quite in the same boat as Anonymous. You'd like to make a dual-wielding fighter, you don't mind that he'll do less average damage than other fighters, but you want to make sure he's as optimally built as possible. What feat and equipment choices will help? What potential problems should you look out for? Take a look at these:
Avoid fighting with two different weapons. If you were planning on fighting with the classic pair of longsword and shortsword, forget it. To maximize your damage output, you'll need Weapon Specialization (and its prerequisite, Weapon Focus) for both of those weapons. That's four feats, and two more than you really need to spend. Instead:
Make sure your weapon-specific feats apply to both your primary and secondary weapons. You can do this by wielding two light weapons (like the dual-shortswords in my examples above), a double weapon (like a double sword or a dire flail), or two non-light one-handed weapons (like two scimitars).
Wielding a double weapon will cost you an Exotic Weapon Proficiency feat, but it will do more damage than a pair of light weapons. A double weapon also allows you to attack with one head as though it were a two handed weapon. This is useful when you can't afford the -2 penalty for attacking with two weapons, or when you are not able to take a Full Attack action.
If you can stand the -4 penalty to attack with two non-light weapons, wielding two longswords (or scimitars, or something similar) may be an option. It will save you one feat compared to the double weapon approach, but you lose out in terms of flexibility. Still, you are more likely to find a pair of +2 longswords than you are a +2/+2 double sword in many campaigns. Your mileage may vary.
Instead of two longswords, you can spend an Exotic Weapon Proficiency and use a pair of bastard swords (or dwarven waraxes, or something similar). It suffers from the same attack penalty and lack of flexibility as the pair of longswords, but at least two bastard swords do more damage than a double weapon. I haven't done the statistics on this option, so use this option at your own risk.
Take a look at the feats in supplements like Sword and Fist and Defenders of the Faith. Some of them (like Shield Expert) are great for certain types of dual-wielders.
Once combat starts, use the flexibility of the damage dice to your advantage. The greatsword fighter has to apply both of his d6 damage dice to one opponent. 2d6 plus bonuses versus weak opponents (like orcs) often leads to wasted damage. A dual-wielder doesn't have to worry about that as much, so attack those low hit point opponents! If you play your cards right, that will give you lots of opportunities to Great Cleave.
With these tips and strategies, you should be able to effectively design and play a character that attacks with two weapons. If you meet a fellow player who sounds an awful lot like Anonymous, take him under your wing and explain some of these points to them. Heck, maybe you should even give him a copy of this essay. Help him understand how to make his character more effective, because we certainly don't need another "Two-Weapon Fighting got the Shaft!" thread on the message boards.
Feedback is always welcome, but I can't promise to respond. I like to play D&D more than I like to wade through an ocean of email. In any case, my address is guyf@apple.com.
Shameless Plug: Please take a look at my D&D Rules FAQ.