Why all the complaints about TWF

Okay Lets look at a really awesome Monster! The Black Dragon. He has an AC Of 18. You need to be afraid. Currently the Black Dragon is a level 9 which means that a player character should be about at level 9 to go toe to toe with the Black Dragon. This means that a fighter will have +5 attack from his class and probably a 20 in strength for +10 total. Lets just toss in a basic +1 magic sword for good measure. This means that a fighter needs a 7 or higher to hit the black dragon. Even with disadvantage a fighter will almost always hit the black dragon. Now you don't get your +5 to those attacks but it would appear to me that you can still use your Expertise Dice. One of the real problems is that you lost your strength bonus to damage and a 1d6 weapon isn't really going to make that up, but you did get two chances to hit a AC 7. If your first attack misses, you now have a chance to get your second attack to hit the effective AC 7  Dragon. You can pump your expertise dice into the monster with the die which hits.

In otherwords, because of the low AC on monsters, and the high to hit of PCs, it is entirely possible that TWF works awesome right now. So why all the complaints? I think this is primarly because people Love Advantage, but overwhealmingly hate Disadvantage. I also think there is something that just says a level 9 creature shouldn't be hit needing only a 7 on the die. The complaint about having disadvantage on TWF is therefore partly because it should be harder to hit a level 9 creature.


D&D Home Page - What Class Are You? - Build A Character - D&D Compendium

It's because people haven't actually playtested it. They just saw an, understandable, reduction in power and flipped out. I will agree that the actual numbers in the new TWF form don't bother me. However, 4 d20 rolls does seem like a lot to roll. That, to me, is the bigger problem. The effect it has on the flow of combat
My two copper.
Yeah the four rolls is bad, and also I don't think the AC is going to stay low enough for long to make my point valid, though it might. Also as written two weapon fighting is probably bad for other classes beyond the fighter.
Don't mae light of disadvantage. I have a d20 right here and rolling a 7 isn't as guaranteed as you say it is. Probability says you have a 49% chance of hitting with each attack and when actually rolling the dice it seems much worse than that. Besides that you'll almost never score a crit and you just aren't going to deal as much damage unless you've got weapons with bonus damage ddice. All that and rolling 4 dice per attack action is horribly slow.
Don't mae light of disadvantage. I have a d20 right here and rolling a 7 isn't as guaranteed as you say it is. Probability says you have a 49% chance of hitting with each attack and when actually rolling the dice it seems much worse than that. Besides that you'll almost never score a crit and you just aren't going to deal as much damage unless you've got weapons with bonus damage ddice. All that and rolling 4 dice per attack action is horribly slow.



I'm not making light of it. I personally hate disadvantage. Nor was I insisting both attacks always hit, rather at least one of the two attacks would probably hit. The benefit comes in for a fighter who if he misses on the first attack, can make a second attack and try again. The one attack that succeeds is the one you pump your expertise dice into. Now if you are not playing a fighter, TWF would be very horrible.

I think people disliking disadvanage is the real reason for the hatred of TWF, though so far WotC has believed that peple like Advantage/Disadvantage. This move on their part shows people love Advantage, but hate Disadvantage. If I had faith in WotC I would actually claim that the whole change to TWF was an experiment to see how well people like Disadvantage and to see the likelyhood of making class features that granted disadvantage would go over. (Looking at the barbarian's rage mechanic) 
people love Advantage, but hate Disadvantage


Working as intended.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition

Level 10 Dwarven fighter, +10 to hit, 1d10+1 (magic battle axe +1) damage, 4 attacks with disadvantage. 


I also tested a Human Fighter with +11 to hit, 1d8+1 damage... negligable difference. I forgot to lower the damage for the offhand by 1 weapon size for both dual wielders... oops! And no finesse axe? 


Use deadly strike with all dice on the first hit, and use glancing blow with all the dice on the first applicable miss (maybe its better to spread them out?)


This is a series of computer simulations of 3 million attacks each against 18 AC


Remember Critical hits do 8d6 extra damage with a magic weapon.



Expertise Dice only for deadly strike: 26.04 DPR


Expertise Dice also for glancing blow (max 3): 22.91 DPR


Expertise Dice also for glancing blow (max 1): 27.85 DPR 


Expertise Dice also for composed attack (max 1 glancing): 25.23


 Expertise Dice also for composed attack (no glancing): 25.12  


 Expertise Dice ONLY for composed attack (deadly strike crits): 21.34


*only 1 die is used for composed attack due to it being really bad (15 DPR)


It looks like you get +13 to +16 DPR if you cancel out disadvantage (you can't gain advantage).


  


Now compare to a human fighter with +11 to hit, 1d12 +5 + 1 damage, 2 attacks without disadvantage:



Expertise Dice only for deadly strike: 36.74 DPR


Expertise Dice also for glancing blow (max 3): 35.45 DPR


Expertise Dice also for glancing blow (max 1): 37.67 DPR


It looks like you get an additional 10 DPR if you have advantage



So you can see an interesting comparison of the different maneuvers here. The take home message is that you are losing 30% DPR by using two weapons so they should be used situationally. They aren't that bad once you reach level 10 but they it takes them a while to get that strong.



I did these calculations for level 1 fighters and dual wielding at that level is terrible, about half damage of normal fighting style. However, against a horde enemies who die in one hit* and have low* AC, it is advantageous to use two weapons.


* Enemies with both less than 5 HP and less than 12 AC for a  level 1 fighter.



For level 10 fighters as above, 14 AC enemies shrink the gap to about 20%. 22 AC enemies grow this gap to about 45%



So... looking at the math... I personally find it a little bit questionable that you lose so much damage just for the ability to kill 2 targets in one turn (or score a finishing blow against a single enemy with low health).  If you can manage to lose disadvantage regularly then it evens out though, so thats also something to consider. In addition, you get no additional penalties for attacking while prone, blinded, etc. Also, rolling 8 d20's is kind of excessive. but maybe thats your style.

I think my problem with the curent TWF rules is that its currently the only style that appears to gave significant drawbacks with little gain when compared to oth styles that have significant gains with limitations. Note that a limitation is much different than a drawback. Additionally I think rolling 4d20's and keeping track of which goes with each weapon is a bit unnecessary. I also see it as penalizing a concept rather than keeping it balanced.
I'm not entirely sure how you did those calculations, but Glancing Blow was changed so that you only add the highest roll to damage instead of adding the rolls together. So I wouldn't spend all my dice on the first miss if I were you.

I agree that disadvantage is the main reason for the dislike towards TWF right now. Unless the disadvantage goes away there really isn't any way that is going to change. I also agree that the drawbacks for TWF are simply too great for it to be useful.
I think people don't like it because their expectations were that since two weapon fighting used to be test, it should still be great. So, anything other than full damage with expertise dice feels weak.
As well, taking disadvantage to roll twice feels like rolling once. The math is pretty complex, but it feels like they should cancel. Which feels like twf is the same as single weapon fighting.

The above is my guesses.
I think people don't like it because their expectations were that since two weapon fighting used to be test, it should still be great. So, anything other than full damage with expertise dice feels weak. As well, taking disadvantage to roll twice feels like rolling once. The math is pretty complex, but it feels like they should cancel. Which feels like twf is the same as single weapon fighting. The above is my guesses.



I do not want 2wf to be hands down superior to the alternatives as it was in previous editons nor do I want it to be hands down inferior as it is in this edition.

I want actual choices and when one "choice" is 50% as effective it is not really a choice at all.
 
Well, no, they don't simply cancel out and I actually do know how to make the calculations. What I don't get is what variables and modifiers were used since only the results are listed.
I should have clarified - I agree that twf shouldn't be better. But, especially with the 2nd packet, the feedback here seemed to be it wasn't "good enough". Which, seems in line with my theory - that they balanced it, so it must suck
My assumption was that one would miss and one would hit
In the 2nd Packet TWF wasn't good enough to qualify as a Feat (limited character resource) because it had limitations and benefits, same as every other style. It was useful sometimes and diverse as other non-feat options.
Part of my problem with TWF is the wording. "the attack cannot have advantage." This can mean one of two things: it cannot ever roll 2 dice keeping the high (the Advantage & Disadvantage wording is blurred again), or it cannot ever gain Advantage (meaning the Rogue sucks). Without this wording, I feel that TWF, especially if supported with a Specialty, would be great. As it is, TWF was bad in Packet 2 and worse in Packet 3.
My house rule for TWF is to use the playtest packet #2 option as a non-Feat aspect and require only that the off-hand weapon be finessable.
Don't mae light of disadvantage. I have a d20 right here and rolling a 7 isn't as guaranteed as you say it is. Probability says you have a 49% chance of hitting with each attack and when actually rolling the dice it seems much worse than that. Besides that you'll almost never score a crit and you just aren't going to deal as much damage unless you've got weapons with bonus damage ddice. All that and rolling 4 dice per attack action is horribly slow.



Check this out, it explains the math.

Assuming the data in the original post.
You have a 49% chance to hit with one attack. You have a 73.99% chance to hit with at least one attack. You have a 24.01% chance to hit with both attacks. One attack you have a 0.25% chance to crit. You have a 0.0625% chance to crit on both attacks.

Lets say you are dealing 1d8(weapon)+1(magic)+2d8(ED).
With the first weapon and 1d8(weapon)+1(magic) with the second weapon.
Average damage is 4.5(weapon)+1(magic)+4.5+4.5(ED) = 14.5
For the first and 4.5(weapon)+1(magic) = 5.5 for the second.
Max Damage (for a crit) +8(weapon)+1(magic)+8+8(ED)+3.5+3.5+3.5+3.5+3.5(crit) = 42.5
Now we plug this into the numbers above:
44% one hit = 6.38; 24.99% second hit = 1.37445; 0.25% one crit = 0.10625; 0.0625% two crits = 0.0265625; Total DPR = 7.8872625

Now for the same fighter with a single weapon:
2d6(weapon)+5(str)+1(magic)+2d8(ED)
Average normal hit 3.5+3.5(weapon)+5(str)+1(magic)+4.5+4.5(ED) = 22
Max Damage (crit) 6+6(weapon)+5(str)+1(magic)+8+8(ED)+3.5+3.5+3.5+3.5+3.5(crit) = 51.5
60% regular hit = 13.2; 5% crit = 2.575; total = 15.775

So you are almost better off just dropping the first weapon and going two handed.
"Unite the [fan] base? Hardly. As of right now, I doubt their ability to unite a slightly unruly teabag with a cup of water."--anjelika
1-4E play style
The 4E play style is a high action cinematic style of play where characters worry less about being killed in one hit and more about strategy and what their next move is and the one after it. The players talk back and forth about planning a battle and who can do what to influence the outcome. 4E play is filled with cinematic over the top action. An Eladrin teleports out of the grip of the Ogre. The Fighter slams the dragons foot with his hammer causing it to rear up and stagger back in pain. The Cleric creates a holy zone where their allies weapons are guided to their targets and whenever an enemy dies the Clerics allies are healed. 4E is about knowing when to lauch your nova attack, whether its a huge arcane spell that causes enemies to whirl around in a chaotic storm, or if its a trained adrenaline surge that causes you to attack many many times with two weapons on a single target, or a surge of adrenaline that keeps you going though you should already be dead. Its about tactics and the inability to carry around a bag of potions or a few wands and never have to worry about healing. Its about the guy that can barely role play having the same chance to convince the king to aid the group as the guy that takes improv acting classes and regularly stars as an extra on movies.
Stormwind Fallacy
The Stormwind Fallacy, aka the Roleplayer vs Rollplayer Fallacy Just because one optimizes his characters mechanically does not mean that they cannot also roleplay, and vice versa. Corollary: Doing one in a game does not preclude, nor infringe upon, the ability to do the other in the same game. Generalization 1: One is not automatically a worse role player if he optimizes, and vice versa. Generalization 2: A non-optimized character is not automatically role played better than an optimized one, and vice versa. ...[aside]... Proof: These two elements rely on different aspects of a player's game play. Optimization factors in to how well one understands the rules and handles synergies to produce a very effective end result. Role playing deals with how well a player can act in character and behave as if he was someone else. A person can act while understanding the rules, and can build something powerful while still handling an effective character. There is nothing in the game -- mechanical or otherwise -- restricting one if you participate in the other. Claiming that an optimizer cannot role play (or is participating in a play style that isn't supportive of role playing) because he is an optimizer, or vice versa, is committing the Stormwind Fallacy.
The spells we should getLook here to Check out my adventures and ideas. I've started a blog, about video games, table top role playing games, programming, and many other things its called Kel and Lok Games. My 4E Fantasy Grounds game is currently full.