PDA

View Full Version : two weapon fightin 4th edition



Mystic Muse
2009-06-03, 07:43 PM
with the two weapon fighting feat do you get to attack twice in the same turn? or what is it that it does?

Sanguine
2009-06-03, 07:44 PM
with the two weapon fighting feat do you get to attack twice in the same turn? or what is it that it does?

I believe it merely increases your damage with your main-hand weapon. as far as I know the only way to attack with both weapons is via powers.

Vortling
2009-06-03, 07:44 PM
I believe it merely increases your damage with your main-hand weapon. as far as I know the only way to attack with both weapons is via powers.
Correct. Most of them are ranger powers.

Blackdrop
2009-06-03, 07:45 PM
It adds a +1 to your the damage your mainhand weapon does when wielding to two weapons. It does not allow you to attack twice.

Mystic Muse
2009-06-03, 07:46 PM
k thanks. message too short:smallfurious:

Tengu_temp
2009-06-03, 07:59 PM
Martial Power has dual-wielding powers for fighters as well.

Hal
2009-06-03, 08:32 PM
There's no penalty for attacking with an off-hand weapon, though, so it's not a bad option for players who want versatility to their attacks. I had a rogue who carried a dagger in one hand and a hand crossbow in the other. His ability to freely switch between ranged or melee attacks was quite useful at times.

Swooper
2009-06-03, 08:35 PM
It adds a +1 to your the damage your mainhand weapon does when wielding to two weapons. It does not allow you to attack twice.
I don't play 4E but... how the hell does that make sense? "I'm holding a dagger in my left hand so I hit you harder with my sword!" :smallconfused:

Panda-s1
2009-06-03, 09:02 PM
I don't play 4E but... how the hell does that make sense? "I'm holding a dagger in my left hand so I hit you harder with my sword!" :smallconfused:

Maybe it's "I hit with my sword, and jab with my dagger right afterward," or "I parry your attack with my dagger and get a better hit with my sword." I mean how would you take advantage of holding two weapons?

spamoo
2009-06-03, 09:03 PM
I don't play 4E but... how the hell does that make sense? "I'm holding a dagger in my left hand so I hit you harder with my sword!" :smallconfused:

It most likely has to do with the fact that you would be able to use that off-hand weapon to distract the opponent or opponent's weapon allowing you to get a better hit with your main weapon. Someone who actually know about these styles of fighting in real life could probably provide a more technical response than this.

Swooper
2009-06-03, 09:10 PM
The first explanation should manifest as extra damage based on the weapon you're using in your off hand (maybe without the strength mod or with half strength mod or something) - otherwise your offhand weapon doesn't matter at all, the second one would be better reflected in an AC bonus than a damage bonus, imho.

...But then, 4E doesn't make sense anyway, except in a ultimate-game-balance kind of way :smallsigh:

Tiki Snakes
2009-06-03, 09:15 PM
It most likely has to do with the fact that you would be able to use that off-hand weapon to distract the opponent or opponent's weapon allowing you to get a better hit with your main weapon. Someone who actually know about these styles of fighting in real life could probably provide a more technical response than this.

That's pretty much how I'd put it. It's a fighting style, not merely 'an extra attack', no matter how minor. Also, there is a feat to give an AC bonus from having a second weapon also. (Think Tempest Fighters get it free?), So, yeah.

[edit] Remember, btw, there's no penalty or anything for attacking with your off-hand weapon. As long as it's got the off-hand property, you can hold two weapons and attack with either no matter what class you are. The Tempest Fighter and TWF ranger get lots of special powers to use with two weapons, of course, but another large benefit is simple flexibility, especially for the TWF ranger, who gets to weild a non-off-hand weapon in his off-hand, too.
Even ignoring mixing and matching magic weapons, it really does give some decent flexibility.

Panda-s1
2009-06-03, 09:31 PM
The first explanation should manifest as extra damage based on the weapon you're using in your off hand (maybe without the strength mod or with half strength mod or something) - otherwise your offhand weapon doesn't matter at all, the second one would be better reflected in an AC bonus than a damage bonus, imho.
There's probably more explanations to how it works, I'm not a weapon expert in any sense. The feat just means you're able to take advantage of holding a weapon in your off hand to make more effective use of the weapon in your main hand. And there's already a feat for an AC bonus while wielding two weapons (one of the few tiered feats in the PHB, I might add).

...But then, 4E doesn't make sense anyway, except in a ultimate-game-balance kind of way :smallsigh:
Really? Just game balance? Never mind the fact a combat round is only six seconds long? It's one thing to use an off-hand weapon to your advantage, but to effectively make an attack with each hand in the span of six seconds requires rather specific training.

Swordguy
2009-06-03, 10:02 PM
It's one thing to use an off-hand weapon to your advantage, but to effectively make an attack with each hand in the span of six seconds requires rather specific training.

No.

No it doesn't. Only making ONE attack with a weapon in each hand in six seconds is indicative of a complete moron. A cut or thrust takes between 0.5 and 1 second to perform for the vast majority of weapons (some faster, some slightly slower - but not many). if it takes you longer than a second to make an attack, you shouldn't be making one.

Moreover, two-weapon fighting (rapier&dagger) was an exceedingly common fighting still for a hundred+ years, and using a weapon and shield (a shield IS a second weapon, not a static AC modifier) was the most common fighting style -period- for millennia. D&D massively overvalues 2-weapon fighting and its difficulty. So do most systems, because a person who can simultaneously attack AND parry, or make an attack along two complete separate lines of attack has a tremendous advantage. And that's bad for "game balance".

Tengu_temp
2009-06-03, 10:07 PM
The first explanation should manifest as extra damage based on the weapon you're using in your off hand (maybe without the strength mod or with half strength mod or something) - otherwise your offhand weapon doesn't matter at all, the second one would be better reflected in an AC bonus than a damage bonus, imho.

...But then, 4E doesn't make sense anyway, except in a ultimate-game-balance kind of way :smallsigh:

Two Weapon Defense, which has the prerequesite of Two Weapon Fighting, gives you +1 AC when you're fighting with two weapons.

Lots of mechanics in 4e are very abstract - remember, it has a Gamist approach, not a Simulationist one. It's worth noting that 3.x makes little sense as well, and most people accept it all without as much as a blink because they've grown used to the conventions it follows over the years, not because DND simulates reality, or even cinematic reality (which it never did, not even closely).



Moreover, two-weapon fighting (rapier&dagger) was an exceedingly common fighting still for a hundred+ years, and using a weapon and shield (a shield IS a second weapon, not a static AC modifier) was the most common fighting style -period- for millennia. D&D massively overvalues 2-weapon fighting and its difficulty. So do most systems, because a person who can simultaneously attack AND parry, or make an attack along two complete separate lines of attack has a tremendous advantage. And that's bad for "game balance".

It's worth noting that the second weapon was always used for parrying or feints, and nobody simply slashed with both weapons like in how two-weapon fighting is commonly portrayed in fiction.

Also, you might be happy to know that in 4e, both dual-wielding (for classes that support it) and sword'n'board become viable combat styles once again.

nightwyrm
2009-06-03, 10:11 PM
Really? Just game balance? Never mind the fact a combat round is only six seconds long? It's one thing to use an off-hand weapon to your advantage, but to effectively make an attack with each hand in the span of six seconds requires rather specific training.

Cut them some slack. They're used to 3e where a TWF user can hit someone 8+ times in those 6 seconds.

nightwyrm
2009-06-03, 10:17 PM
No.

No it doesn't. Only making ONE attack with a weapon in each hand in six seconds is indicative of a complete moron. A cut or thrust takes between 0.5 and 1 second to perform for the vast majority of weapons (some faster, some slightly slower - but not many). if it takes you longer than a second to make an attack, you shouldn't be making one.

Moreover, two-weapon fighting (rapier&dagger) was an exceedingly common fighting still for a hundred+ years, and using a weapon and shield (a shield IS a second weapon, not a static AC modifier) was the most common fighting style -period- for millennia. D&D massively overvalues 2-weapon fighting and its difficulty. So do most systems, because a person who can simultaneously attack AND parry, or make an attack along two complete separate lines of attack has a tremendous advantage. And that's bad for "game balance".

I'm gonna have to go with the abstraction that one attack roll is not a just single attack. Before 3e, 1 round was 1 minute....

and what tengu said about the second weapon mostly used for parrying rather than mad dual slashing.

Panda-s1
2009-06-03, 10:19 PM
No.

No it doesn't. Only making ONE attack with a weapon in each hand in six seconds is indicative of a complete moron. A cut or thrust takes between 0.5 and 1 second to perform for the vast majority of weapons (some faster, some slightly slower - but not many). if it takes you longer than a second to make an attack, you shouldn't be making one.

Moreover, two-weapon fighting (rapier&dagger) was an exceedingly common fighting still for a hundred+ years, and using a weapon and shield (a shield IS a second weapon, not a static AC modifier) was the most common fighting style -period- for millennia. D&D massively overvalues 2-weapon fighting and its difficulty. So do most systems, because a person who can simultaneously attack AND parry, or make an attack along two complete separate lines of attack has a tremendous advantage. And that's bad for "game balance".

I think rapier and dagger fighting is more indicative of the Two-Weapon Fighting and Defense feats, where the dagger was used more for parrying and deflecting, i.e. using an off-hand weapon to gain an advantage rather than trying to get a bunch of attacks in at once. Shields are kinda like weapons, but again not really as their main use is to block attacks.

And notice that I said effectively attack. I'm pretty sure you'd probably get a few swings in in a single round, but chances are only one is really gonna land a blow.

Oracle_Hunter
2009-06-03, 10:20 PM
The first explanation should manifest as extra damage based on the weapon you're using in your off hand (maybe without the strength mod or with half strength mod or something) - otherwise your offhand weapon doesn't matter at all, the second one would be better reflected in an AC bonus than a damage bonus, imho.

...But then, 4E doesn't make sense anyway, except in a ultimate-game-balance kind of way :smallsigh:
FYI: Companion Weapon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Companion_weapon) for historical examples and Parrying Dagger (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parrying_dagger) (for Two-Weapon Defense) and Sword Breaker (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parrying_dagger#Swordbreakers) (for Two-Weapon Fighting).

The more you know :smallsmile:

Colmarr
2009-06-03, 10:39 PM
a person who can simultaneously attack AND parry, or make an attack along two complete separate lines of attack has a tremendous advantage. And that's bad for "game balance".

I'm not a trained weapon-wielder, but if dual-wielding were as powerful as you suggest, then it would have been the dominant fighting style for most of human history.

At least as far as I'm aware, it wasn't. (Again AFAIA) It was generally limited to personal duels in ritualised combat.

I doubt it is anywhere near as effective as people suggest.

lsfreak
2009-06-03, 11:01 PM
Shields were weapons for pretty much all of history. Most of history had shields + sword or spear, or sword + offhand blade. The periods of history that didn't either had plate or guns.

Swordguy
2009-06-03, 11:05 PM
I'm not a trained weapon-wielder, but if dual-wielding were as powerful as you suggest, then it would have been the dominant fighting style for most of human history.

At least as far as I'm aware, it wasn't. (Again AFAIA) It was generally limited to personal duels in ritualised combat.

I doubt it is anywhere near as effective as people suggest.


You're confusing dual-wielding with two-weapon fighting.

Dual-wielding IS rare, because it's not an especially efficient defensive fighting style. Generally speaking, dual-wielding says to your opponent "I'm going to kill you, and I don't care whether I live or die", and for good reason. There's a reason that most dual-wielders are berserks or similar.

Two-weapon fighting WAS the dominant fighting style throughout human history. One weapon (incl. shield) for defense, one weapon for offense allows you to simultaneously stop an attack and attack yourself while your opponent is necessarily exposed.

However, the defensive weapon of a 2-weapon fighter is still an offensive option, and even fighting with a spear and shield, you can get five to six attacks off - each one a knockdown blow or a lethal attack - within six seconds, which was the initial issue; Panda-s1 suggested that to be able to make two attacks inside of six seconds was so difficult as to require specialized training.

Tell you what - why don't we mosey on over to the RW Weapons&Armor thread. This is right up the 'regulars' alley.

Colmarr
2009-06-04, 12:37 AM
[QUOTE=Swordguy;6215227]Stuff[QUOTE]

I think there was a miscommunication based on your use of the term "overvalue" and the emphasis in the last sentence on "attack along two lines".

Re-reading your original post in light of your last one suggests that our positions aren't actually all that far apart, so no need to derail this thread or prolong that one :smallsmile:

TheOOB
2009-06-04, 12:46 AM
In real life, the advantage of two-weapon fighting was you could attack and defend at the same time, if you where skilled enough to do so. The shield is obviously best at this, but around the age on enlightenment shields fell out of style to be replaced by thick daggers. Very rarely did you use the off hand weapon to attack, and only if your opponent left themselves very open.

Thajocoth
2009-06-04, 01:35 AM
If one follows the two-weapon feats, then you do get more than just that +1 damage and +1 AC.

Two-Weapon Threat adds a flat +3 damage when you take an AO.

In Paragon Tier, Two-Weapon Opening gives you a free attack with your offhand weapon when you crit with your main weapon.

In Epic Tier, Two-Weapon Flurry lets you make an attack with your offhand weapon (at a -5 to the roll) whenever you take an AO.

And I'm sure there will be more two-weapon feats as time goes on.