View Full Version : Two-Weapon Fighting
shamgar001
2012-05-01, 07:25 PM
I'm not a huge fan of the two weapon rules in 4e. Would there be any reason I couldn't replace those with the 3.5 rules? Would that cause major imbalances?
Rhaegar14
2012-05-01, 07:57 PM
Umm, I would say yes, because 3.5 TWF was built around the concept of iterative attacks, where 4th has no such thing. Plus, without Sneak Attack or some other source of bonus damage, TWF hardly did any more damage than a two-hander; this would not be the case in 4e.
huttj509
2012-05-01, 07:58 PM
I'm not a huge fan of the two weapon rules in 4e. Would there be any reason I couldn't replace those with the 3.5 rules? Would that cause major imbalances?
If it only gave you a "full attack" option for a melee basic attack? Probably not in the long run. If it let you use your powers twice or something, probably.
NecroRebel
2012-05-01, 08:03 PM
As in, you want anyone who wields a second weapon in their off-hand to be able to take a second attack, with some penalties, whenever they attack? How are you thinking about implementing this idea?
How, exactly, you do this would determine how overpowered it is, but the short answer is that it would be very overpowered no matter how you did it. The most obvious implementation, simply letting a person who took the two-weapon fighting feat attack a second time whenever they made a melee attack, would be crazily strong. As in, something weaker than that is the Ranger's entire schtick and the Ranger is still considered one of the strongest, if not the strongest, striker class there is because of it. Even if you only allowed the extra attack on basic attacks and didn't add the Str or Dex bonus, it would still be far too strong; again, the Ranger basically has that in the Twin Strike power, which is stronger than most of their encounter powers (to the extent where any Ranger power that doesn't attack twice or without using a standard action is considered weak!). Most every weapon-user would take TWF in either case, non-melee Strikers (and rangers) would be rendered obsolete because they wouldn't be able to match the TWFers' damage output, and you'd basically completely change the game.
Two-weapon fighting, in 3.5, is somewhat weak because all of the major sources of melee damage are multiplied by having a single weapon wielded in two hands. Power attack and strength modifiers in particular meant that a two-handed weapon did four or five times the damage per strike as a one-handed weapon, and got more than half the attacks of even TWFers. In 4e, all of the static damage bonuses aren't multiplied by anything, so if you're doubling the number of attacks, you're doubling a character's damage. Any implementation of two-weapon fighting, except through a class and its powers (like the ranger and a couple of fighter options), will be terribly strong, and even those that are implemented through that way will be very strong. Twin Strike is basically the Ranger's striker feature, and you're considering making it available to everyone as a feat. Think about that.
Ashdate
2012-05-02, 12:35 AM
I'm not a huge fan of the two weapon rules in 4e. Would there be any reason I couldn't replace those with the 3.5 rules? Would that cause major imbalances?
Yes, it would cause major imbalances, as NecroRebel noted.
What are your issues with the 4e two-weapon rules?
huttj509
2012-05-02, 05:39 AM
Yes, it would cause major imbalances, as NecroRebel noted.
What are your issues with the 4e two-weapon rules?
The objection I've seen the most (which I personally disagree with) is that it doesn't 'feel' like dual-wielding. From various implementations (various systems, video games, etc), we're used to the idea of wielding multiple weapons giving more attacks, rather than just giving more options (say if you have a melee in one hand range in another) or a small attack/defense bonus. This is despite that IRL, two-weapon fighting is/was more often used for additional defense (parrying dagger), opening holes to attack (parry with one weapon and strike with the other), etc, as opposed to a windmill of swirling blades (but it looks cool in Hollywood).
To me, it makes sense, as I personally have envisioned the attack roll as not just being standing there trading swings, but a representation of multiple attacks/feints/parries, which is then represented by 1 (or more, for iteratives) rolls. So even if you're getting more attack attempts from an off-hand weapon, it fits for me to represent that with a bonus to the one attack roll, as opposed to adding a whole other set of attacks. If you do get more attack rolls in a system, it's not as much you swinging faster, but you have enough skill to give more of your attacks a chance to strike true.
If you view each attack roll as a separate swing, and each swing as requiring its own attack roll, it can seem odd to have it feel like your off-hand weapon is just sitting there, and you rarely/never try to poke the guy with it (Even with a parrying dagger, if you get an opening, it's pointy, stab the $%^&).
Musco
2012-05-02, 06:51 AM
Even allowing only for Basic Attacks would still be a problem, since a lot of powers can explicitly be used as a Basic Attack. It'd cause imbalance between ranged and melee-oriented characters, since melee would be able to get extra attacks and ranged wouldn't. Heck, I have a warlock which would probably get Melee Training: Charisma and hack away once his Encounter powers ran out (fairly low level still), even with half modifier for damage, it's still worth it (HP and defenses set aside, of course, it's more of a "depending on the battle layout and who's left" kind of thing) with the +1 bonus to the damage rolls the feat itself gives you.
As has been pointed out, I came from AD&D, so I'm used to considering a turn as a flurry of swings from both sides, dancing in and out of range, parrying, dodging, etc, until you get that opening, that sweet one opening in which you can go all-in to put out some hurt, which represents your attack roll. Still, even with an opening you can miss sometimes, so that's why attack rolls miss.
inexorabletruth
2012-05-06, 02:02 PM
I'm equally frustrated with the TWF rules, but there is a work-around... hollow as it feels:
Twin Strike.
You must be wielding two weapons to use it. Why you need to take a power to use two weapons, I'll never know, but there it is. *shrug*
As a house-rule, you could sort of prevent abuse of TWF homebrew this way:
Must be a basic attack, powers cannot be used when using two weapons, unless you are specifically using a TWF power.
Both weapons count as improvised weapons for the purpose of calculating damage, unless you are using two light weapons.
You cannot use your strength modifier to damage when using your second weapon.
Coming from someone who has practiced with two weapons, I'd say this loosely reflects the awkwardness of TWF while still allowing all PCs to use one, and it still makes it pretty tempting to just pick up a TWF power like Twin Strike.
Dragosai
2012-05-10, 11:54 AM
Missing the point about how attacks work in 4E.
In play there is no difference in fighting with two weapons from 3E to 4E.
Both versions you use two weapons you make more attacks.
You just need to get it out of your head that a 4E basic attack is something that gets used ever.
basic attacks come up very infrequently, mostly just from getting an attack of opportunity.
It is never a good idea for a character to spend a standard action making a basic attack.
With this in mind like I said there is no difference from 3E to 4E for wielding two weapons. On your turn you will make more attacks in both systems.
If you want to make a character that wields two weapons there is at least 150 powers that are all about making two or more attacks with main hand and off hand for fighters, rangers, and barbarians.
Going back to that basic attack there is even feats you can take to make you attack of opportunity reflex that you are wielding two weapons by allowing an off hand strike etc.
You just need to get it out of your head that a 4E basic attack is something that gets used ever.
It is never a good idea for a character to spend a standard action making a basic attack.While generally true, the essentials classes disagree.
But yeah, classes designed to dual-wield already make several attacks per round, and 4e is pretty tightly balanced with the rules-as-written (with the classes that you might consider dual-wielding on already being top-tier), so breaking that will just overpower them for no real reason.
Kurald Galain
2012-05-10, 12:58 PM
It would probably be okay to make two attacks if both attacks did only half the damage they would normally do.
It is important to realize that damage in 4E is hugely reliant on your damage bonuses, and not so much on the dice (heck, even some of the designers haven't noticed this). It's common for an attack to deal, say, 1d8+20 damage. So having two attacks for 1d8+20 each is a huge deal (and this is why the ranger is the best striker in the game). Making it two attacks for 1d8+10 each is much more reasonable.
For instance, Dual Weapon Mastery (feat) prereq: dex 15, any martial class. You gain the following power:
Dual Weapon Strike (melee, standard action, at-will) Requirement: you must wield two weapons. Attack: str vs AC, two attacks (main hand and off-hand). Damage: 1[W]. Special: all your damage bonuses are halved for this attack.
It would probably be okay to make two attacks if both attacks did only half the damage they would normally do.
It is important to realize that damage in 4E is hugely reliant on your damage bonuses, and not so much on the dice (heck, even some of the designers haven't noticed this). It's common for an attack to deal, say, 1d8+20 damage. So having two attacks for 1d8+20 each is a huge deal (and this is why the ranger is the best striker in the game). Making it two attacks for 1d8+10 each is much more reasonable.
For instance, Dual Weapon Mastery (feat) prereq: dex 15, any martial class. You gain the following power:
Dual Weapon Strike (melee, standard action, at-will) Requirement: you must wield two weapons. Attack: str vs AC, two attacks (main hand and off-hand). Damage: 1[W]. Special: all your damage bonuses are halved for this attack.
That could still be abused, since on-hit effects would still trigger, and vulnerabilities would still be applied multiple times. As I understand it, forcing vulnerabilities is one of the best ways of doing high-level damage in 4e, no? I mean, the feat investment should carry SOME benefit, but this still seems ripe for give-an-inch-and-take-a-mile abuse.
If you really want the feel of the old blender, I'd say just play a Ranger. If you want to have it be Easy Mode, play a Scout (basically a subclass of Ranger—their entire schtick is that they get an extra swing with their off-hand after making a basic attack, which is all they do). Any houserule that adds extra attacks per round is going to seriously mess up the balance of 4e.
If you want other classes ready-made for dual-wielding, try the Tempest Fighter or Whirling Slayer Barbarian. They both have class features and powers that rely on making lots of attacks with two weapons. Unlike the Ranger, they tend to spread these attacks out across multiple targets, but they've all got a pretty similar flavor to them.
shamgar001
2012-05-10, 04:50 PM
My bad for not responding sooner. Busy end-of-school stuff has prohibited me from interacting with my own thread. :smallfrown: But reading over this, I can see that this is going to cause problems. Thank you all for your input.
MeeposFire
2012-05-12, 01:31 AM
Another idea is to change the TWF feat to allow you to make an attack roll to deal some level of static damage. So instead of dealing +1 damage with weapon attacks you deal more damage but only on one extra attack (obviously we would need to do some math on what is balanced for the damage) and stipulate that you can't add any bonus damage to it and it is always typeless damage. May give the feel but less powerful.
Firebug
2012-05-13, 02:02 AM
If you (or someone else in the game) wants to play with a two weapon fighting style... let them. Then point them to the Ranger(Scout) or Marauder/Two-Blade Ranger with Twin-Strike and the various encounter/daily 'upgrades'. Or a Tempest/Arena/One-hand Weapon Talent Fighter(Weaponmaster). Or a Monk (visually anyway, they tend to use weapons just for feats and flavor). Or a Whirling Barbarian or probably a dozen or so other subclasses that I am forgetting.
TLDR: there are a lot of ways to represent 'two-weapon fighting' within the rules already, you shouldn't really need to modify them.
p.s. If you (or someone else) is just looking to make a lot of attacks in one round... try a Human Scout (for throw and stab). So you Throw (1w attack Str vs AC or Ref with Midnight Blade Student), then Stab (MBA, 1w+dex, Dex vs AC, vs Ref in paragon with Deft Blade), then Dual Weapon Attack if you hit with the MBA (1w+dex, Dex vs AC). At level 3 take Martial Cross-Training to Swap one of your Power Strikes for Ruffling Sting/Disruptive Strike/Avenging Charge or another non-standard action attack.
darkdragoon
2012-05-18, 03:27 AM
Compare to Twin Strike. 2 MBAs would add Strength for each hit, so you're netting more damage over one of the most powerful abilities in the game. But you'll miss more. Potentially a lot more.
Improved etc. will also burn up feat slots that could have gone to static damage or general accuracy. You can get extra attacks in many other different ways. Do you really think STR mod x2 on your vanilla turns is worth all that hassle?
basic attacks come up very infrequently, mostly just from getting an attack of opportunity.
It is never a good idea for a character to spend a standard action making a basic attack.
The latter is *somewhat* true, the former is not. There are many ways to add an extra basic attack.
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.