PDA

View Full Version : 4e Dual Wielding



Zocelot
2008-06-06, 01:13 PM
In 4e, light weapons no longer exist. Rather, some one handed weapons have the "off hand" property. Rangers, however, gain a special ability that lets them use any one handed weapon in their off hand.

Rangers can fight effectively with a bastard sword in each hand. WOO!

Who hasn't put thought into making a dual bastard sword wielding character, then given up because the rules made them suck?

Note: Two weapon fighting really sucks for all other characters. None can attack with both weapons in the same turn.

SamTheCleric
2008-06-06, 01:17 PM
Screw that... Dragonborn Ranger dual wielding Battle Axes!

(and yes, two weapon fighting is -terrible- for other classes. The feat allows you to hold a weapon in each hand, and you gain a +1 damage to your main hand.)

Theodoxus
2008-06-06, 01:23 PM
pshaw!

Bugbear (or Minataur) Ranger duel wielding Large Battleaxes FTW!

SamTheCleric
2008-06-06, 01:25 PM
pshaw!

Bugbear (or Minataur) Ranger duel wielding Large Battleaxes FTW!

Your kung fu is strong, grasshoppa'

Attilargh
2008-06-06, 01:27 PM
Correction: The feat gives you a +1 damage bonus with yur main hand while wielding two weapons. Anyone can wield two weapons without penalty now.

I don't know if it would actually work, but I imagine a multiclass rogue would get a fair mileage out of wielding a dagger in the off hand. Fighters might also dual-wield to get more bang out of those powers that gain bonuses when using certain weapons.

Rutee
2008-06-06, 01:29 PM
TWF is actually not that bad, I felt. Not optimal, but not "Your character now sucks". Plus, you can multi into Ranger and pick up some of the moves that better credit an offhand.

Spiryt
2008-06-06, 01:35 PM
How exactly it "suck" ?

What advantages fighting with one larger weapon or sword and shield have over it?

About "rangers only" two weapon fighting - it's the one of the "powers" system shortcomings it seems. Although I don't know why couldn't they just some TWF powers to paladins and fighters as well.

Zocelot
2008-06-06, 01:36 PM
TWF is actually not that bad, I felt. Not optimal, but not "Your character now sucks". Plus, you can multi into Ranger and pick up some of the moves that better credit an offhand.

Multiclassing into ranger only gives you hunter's quarry 1/encounter and training in nature.

It's powerful, especially against solo's/elites (I made a warlock who's entire strategy is hunter's quarry+warlocks curse+eldritch blast), but it has nothing to do with bows or two weapons.

I guess you could go instead of a paragon path, but that seems pretty debilitating. The same amount of same powered abilities, but with no class features...

Attilargh
2008-06-06, 01:40 PM
Multiclassing into ranger only gives you hunter's quarry 1/encounter and training in nature.
At which point you pick up a Power-swap Feat or three, conveniently located on the next page.

Tyger
2008-06-06, 01:40 PM
Yes, but both of those races can wield weapons one sized larger as if they were sized for them.

EDIT: Weird. That was supposed to be a response to Indon's "there are no large sized critters" post... my telepathy must be mis-firing again. :)

Nohwl
2008-06-06, 01:40 PM
Who hasn't put thought into making a dual bastard sword wielding character, then given up because the rules made them suck?



i tried to make one, but wasnt allowed to. the reason was something about not fitting the stereotype for a rogue.

SamTheCleric
2008-06-06, 01:41 PM
Erm, you can take the multiclass feats that give you powers from the other class.

Zocelot
2008-06-06, 01:44 PM
How exactly it "suck" ?
What advantages fighting with one larger weapon or sword and shield have over it?


One big weapon does more damage, because you get the same amount of attacks that you would with a smaller damage dice weapon.

A shield will give you an AC boost (no sh*t!), which the defenders need.

Warlocks and Wizards don't use weapons, Fighters and Paladins are going to go either giant weapon or sword 'n' board, and Clerics and Warlords have no use for 2 weapons. Rogues probably don't want to spend double the normal cost on weapons either, particularly because the can only use one at once.

YPU
2008-06-06, 01:47 PM
Two weapon fighting, there is hardly a reason why one would do it if your not a ranger. Tough I could imagine some encounters that would be a lot more useful with a fire weapon in one hand and a cold weapon in the other (or any other combination), the ranger now is very good with two weapons and I like that quite a lot.
If you want to be a two weapon using fighter you could always be a ranger and cross class into fighter or the other way round.


Bugbear (or Minataur) Ranger duel wielding Large Battleaxes FTW!
Didnít the bugbear used to have rogue as favoured class? Would that give a bugbear 1d8 shuriken? It has the same accuracy and damage as a longsword, and if I remember correctly there are some powers that allow a rogue to attack al in a blast area, that would kick ass in a rather monkey grip like way.

Zocelot
2008-06-06, 01:48 PM
At which point you pick up a Power-swap Feat or three, conveniently located on the next page.

Ah, such is the price of not knowing the rules to the extend I did 3.5e.

wodan46
2008-06-06, 01:50 PM
I know that plenty of Fighters and Warlords would be happy to spend a feat to get TWF, a feat to get the ranger multiclass, and a feat to grab Blade Cascade. Damn useful for a fighter or warlord.

Yakk
2008-06-06, 01:50 PM
TWF is probably smart for a Rogue.

Have a Short Sword/Rapier in one hand, and a Dagger in another.

You can now attack at +3/d6 or +3/d8 from one hand, and +4/d4 in the other, depending on if connecting or damage dice matter more.

And you can burn feats for +1 damage, +1 AC, and eventually two-weapon opportunity.

Sadly, dipping into Ranger melee sort of sucks, because it needs strength (unless you house-rule Weapon Finess).

SamTheCleric
2008-06-06, 01:51 PM
TWF is probably smart for a Rogue.

Have a Short Sword/Rapier in one hand, and a Dagger in another.

You can now attack at +3/d6 or +3/d8 from one hand, and +4/d4 in the other, depending on if connecting or damage dice matter more.

And you can burn feats for +1 damage, +1 AC, and eventually two-weapon opportunity.

Sadly, dipping into Ranger melee sort of sucks, because it needs strength (unless you house-rule Weapon Finess).

Or just be a brutal scoundrel so you get your strength to sneak attacks too :)

Zocelot
2008-06-06, 01:52 PM
Two weapon fighting, there is hardly a reason why one would do it if your not a ranger. Tough I could imagine some encounters that would be a lot more useful with a fire weapon in one hand and a cold weapon in the other (or any other combination), the ranger now is very good with two weapons and I like that quite a lot.
If you want to be a two weapon using fighter you could always be a ranger and cross class into fighter or the other way round.


Didnít the bugbear used to have rogue as favoured class? Would that give a bugbear 1d8 shuriken? It has the same accuracy and damage as a longsword, and if I remember correctly there are some powers that allow a rogue to attack al in a blast area, that would kick ass in a rather monkey grip like way.

I'd rather use the hand crossbow, which starts at 1d6, so would do 2d6 with one attack.

Maybe the normal crossbow would work too (2d8). I didn't see any rules for powers that make multiple attacks with weapons that require time to reload.

I don't know if rogue is the bugbears favorite class though. My MM hasn't arrived yet.

Rutee
2008-06-06, 01:55 PM
Incidental note: We're not discussing things from an optimization standpoint, are we? 'cause there's certainly no reason to TWF from that perspective (Which is a shame), unless you're a Ranger. There's not that heavy a reason against it, but there's certainly nothing going for it.

SamTheCleric
2008-06-06, 01:57 PM
Actually, I could see the benefit of a rogue having a higher profiency weapon in his off hand... especially if the two weapons were of different magic powah. Sometimes you just really need a Resounding Dagger to daze them one round, then use your Short sword the next round with combat advantage.

Zocelot
2008-06-06, 02:04 PM
Actually, I could see the benefit of a rogue having a higher profiency weapon in his off hand... especially if the two weapons were of different magic powah. Sometimes you just really need a Resounding Dagger to daze them one round, then use your Short sword the next round with combat advantage.

A Duelist's wepaon would work just as well. Dual Wielding just eats up too much gold.

Azerian Kelimon
2008-06-06, 02:25 PM
'Tis a pity TWF with a two handed weapon is impossible by the rules. I'd pay a lot and take a hefty to-hit penalty to get a greatsword-and-longsword wielding fighter.

Bearonet
2008-06-06, 02:28 PM
I wonder where the idea that fighting with two weapon should give you extra attacks came from?

Azerian Kelimon
2008-06-06, 02:34 PM
I wonder where the idea that fighting with two weapon should give you extra attacks came from?

Probably from the simple logic the designers had.

Weapon = Attacks.

Weapon + weapon = Moar attacks! Happy panda!

Doesn't work like that, of course. But hey, the designers never do the research.

Spiryt
2008-06-06, 02:37 PM
Warlocks and Wizards don't use weapons, Fighters and Paladins are going to go either giant weapon or sword 'n' board, and Clerics and Warlords have no use for 2 weapons.

Why? :smallconfused:

If system allows something like TWF, and makes it beneficial from some reason, why shouldn't all classes have chance to benefit from it?

Really the only logical reason why only rangers should be good with TWF is some tradition...

Adumbration
2008-06-06, 02:39 PM
Probably from the simple logic the designers had.

Weapon = Attacks.

Weapon + weapon = Moar attacks! Happy panda!

Doesn't work like that, of course. But hey, the designers never do the research.

How's so? You can attack with both weapons in the same time it would take to attack with a single weapon - you just suck more.

wodan46
2008-06-06, 02:50 PM
When using two weapons together, you use them effectively as one weapon that's very hard to block. You strike with both weapons at once, and the enemy will have difficulty blocking both.

Frankly, it makes more sense to give an Attack bonus for 2 weapon fighting, than it does to give damage or extra attacks.

Spiryt
2008-06-06, 02:55 PM
When using two weapons together, you use them effectively as one weapon that's very hard to block. You strike with both weapons at once, and the enemy will have difficulty blocking both.

Do you have any examples of such fighting?

I can't imagine how it's supposed to work. Striking with two weapons at the same exact moment would be extremaly akward and weak. Just try swining two sticks at the same moment...

From logical point of view TWF figthing should indeed give some attack/whatever bonuses, which represent binding enemy weapons, tentacles or shields with your off hand weapon or something.

Bearonet
2008-06-06, 02:57 PM
How's so? You can attack with both weapons in the same time it would take to attack with a single weapon - you just suck more.

That's not how dual-weapon fighting styles actually work, is the thing. Off-hand weapons are used to parry, and to take advantage of binds and such. The way the Two-Weapon Fighting feat works now makes perfect sense to me, except that I'd probably make Two-Weapon Defense come first, not second.

wodan46
2008-06-06, 03:04 PM
That's my point. You don't try to make additional attacks with the offhand weapon, you use it as support, by tying up the enemy's weapon with it, allowing you to use your main weapon without the enemy parrying or attacking back as effectively.

Azerian Kelimon
2008-06-06, 03:14 PM
Indeed. You CAN use two weapons to do all out attacks with both of 'em, but it's a very difficult style to use with little payoff.

Zocelot
2008-06-06, 03:38 PM
Using 2 weapons is much more cinematic then 1, so in cases where realism is not the key, it is very popular.

Rutee
2008-06-06, 03:41 PM
That's actually why I'm confused. You'd figure that with a move to cinematic, they'd /stay/ unrealistic. But then, they were probably thinking Errol Flynn, not Miyamoto Musashi.

Tsotha-lanti
2008-06-06, 04:30 PM
That's actually why I'm confused. You'd figure that with a move to cinematic, they'd /stay/ unrealistic. But then, they were probably thinking Errol Flynn, not Miyamoto Musashi.

"Simple and balanced" was obviously a consideration that overrode "cinematic"; that's what the new mechanic seems to be.

Scintillatus
2008-06-06, 04:34 PM
You can still do the whole dual-wield storm of swords thing as a Ranger, though, and I believe there are multi-attack powers in the Fighter and Rogue sets.

Swordguy
2008-06-06, 05:03 PM
Indeed. You CAN use two weapons to do all out attacks with both of 'em, but it's a very difficult style to use with little payoff.

This belongs in the RW Weapon and Armor thread, but I'll say it here.

There is an extremely nice payoff to a full-attack style using two weapons against an opponent with either a single weapon (historical longsword - NOT D&D longsword, greatsword, or true two-hander) or against a sword&board user. Essentially, you make two attacks in different lines, say, high left and low right, simultaneously. Or attack both high and low against the opponent's shield side (good luck stopping both with the same shield). It's EXTREMELY hard as a defender to track both attacks to defend against both (or downright impossible if the enemy has only one weapon - they must defend and dodge) at the same time.

So, even though you may not hit as hard with either weapon, you're much more likely to get some sort of hit. This is extremely valuable, especially in a system (like in real life) where any sort of hit will significantly degrade the enemy's ability to fight. In an abstract system like D&D - not so much.

The tradeoff is that you have no defense whatsoever while doing so (not always true, but true often enough that it may as well be "always"). Which means if your opponent isn't already back on his heels, you're likely to get hit as well. And you're more likely to take a really serious hit. Because of this (most historical warriors thought defense first, offense second), two-weapon fighting is comparatively rare until the sword&dagger schools that popped up in the late 1500's.

To accurately portray this style, you'd need the following:
One weapon takes a severe to-hit penalty (the weapon that you expect to get stopped).
One weapons takes a large to-hit bonus (the weapon attacking in the opposite line of the defender's expected parry).
Damage should be slightly reduced on both attacks.
You take a LARGE AC penalty during this attack.

Maerok
2008-06-06, 05:10 PM
You guys are trying to break 4e already?

Kurald Galain
2008-06-06, 05:16 PM
You guys are trying to break 4e already?

Of course. There's already a build on the WOTC forums that can reliably one-shot the toughest 1500 HP evil god monster in the MM :smallcool:

Maerok
2008-06-06, 05:19 PM
Of course. There's already a build on the WOTC forums that can reliably one-shot the toughest 1500 HP evil god monster in the MM :smallcool:

Somehow I should have known that before you told me. Pssh... WotC forum-folk...

Azerian Kelimon
2008-06-06, 05:47 PM
This belongs in the RW Weapon and Armor thread, but I'll say it here.

There is an extremely nice payoff to a full-attack style using two weapons against an opponent with either a single weapon (historical longsword - NOT D&D longsword, greatsword, or true two-hander) or against a sword&board user. Essentially, you make two attacks in different lines, say, high left and low right, simultaneously. Or attack both high and low against the opponent's shield side (good luck stopping both with the same shield). It's EXTREMELY hard as a defender to track both attacks to defend against both (or downright impossible if the enemy has only one weapon - they must defend and dodge) at the same time.

So, even though you may not hit as hard with either weapon, you're much more likely to get some sort of hit. This is extremely valuable, especially in a system (like in real life) where any sort of hit will significantly degrade the enemy's ability to fight. In an abstract system like D&D - not so much.

The tradeoff is that you have no defense whatsoever while doing so (not always true, but true often enough that it may as well be "always"). Which means if your opponent isn't already back on his heels, you're likely to get hit as well. And you're more likely to take a really serious hit. Because of this (most historical warriors thought defense first, offense second), two-weapon fighting is comparatively rare until the sword&dagger schools that popped up in the late 1500's.

To accurately portray this style, you'd need the following:
One weapon takes a severe to-hit penalty (the weapon that you expect to get stopped).
One weapons takes a large to-hit bonus (the weapon attacking in the opposite line of the defender's expected parry).
Damage should be slightly reduced on both attacks.
You take a LARGE AC penalty during this attack.

Of course, a sword and shield user is going to use the weapon to parry, too (Or rather, deflect, which is usually a better choice). Or simply jump back and then forward to take advantage of the loss of balance an all out attack is going to provoke. A single weapon fighter is pretty screwed if he doesn't have good dodging skills, though.

Ceiling009
2008-06-06, 05:48 PM
Hmm... Twin strike, the ranger at will dual wield power, how does that work with two one handed range weapons? I think it's still two attacks, but if it's one ranged weapon it's two attack; then how like repeating crossbow or quick drawn shuriken in each hand?

Kabump
2008-06-06, 10:31 PM
Of course. There's already a build on the WOTC forums that can reliably one-shot the toughest 1500 HP evil god monster in the MM :smallcool:

Im curious to see this build :) What keyword should I be looking for (not having gone over there yet) or is it painfully obvious? I suppose as I browse over there now Ill find out one way or the other! :smallbiggrin:

*EDIT* Of course its very easy to find :smallbiggrin: Breaking the game already, silly munchkins!

Suzuro
2008-06-06, 10:47 PM
I agree that two-weapon fighting wasn't purely defensive. I mean, look at the maine gauche (Main Goshe), although it was a mainly defensive weapon, it could also be used to punch someone in the face if they defend against the main weapon.


-Suzuro

Bearonet
2008-06-06, 10:54 PM
I agree that two-weapon fighting wasn't purely defensive. I mean, look at the maine gauche (Main Goshe), although it was a mainly defensive weapon, it could also be used to punch someone in the face if they defend against the main weapon.


-Suzuro

And that's why Two-Weapon Fighting gives a damage increase. It's just represented as a small amount every time instead of a bunch occasionally.

JaxGaret
2008-06-06, 11:51 PM
Of course. There's already a build on the WOTC forums that can reliably one-shot the toughest 1500 HP evil god monster in the MM :smallcool:

Of course, if Orcus has some helpers around to raise his AC via spells or other powers/abilities... the Blade Cascade doesn't do nearly as much damage. Each point of AC that Orcus gains reduces the average damage dealt by a lot.

And of course Orcus has helpers around to buff his defenses. He's Orcus, Demon Prince of the Undead. He's seen this Blade Cascade Ranger trick before, surely. And he's far from stupid (25 Int, 25 Wis, 30 Cha). He knows that Epic adventurers can conceivably gang up and kick his butt, but he's survived this long, so why not try and stick around a little longer? :smallsmile:

Panda-s1
2008-06-07, 01:39 AM
I for one was upset at the lack of two weapon fighting for classes other than ranger, though I could understand why they did it.

Fighters will want to two weapon fight for versatility reasons. Remember how different powers do different things with different kinds of weapons.

Still I think fighters and rogues deserve to two weapon fight, so in my campaign I'll give the option to fighters and rogues to take Twin Strike as long as they have at least Dex 13. That or I'll come up with at-will powers for both classes that make use of two weapons.

JaxGaret
2008-06-07, 01:44 AM
Still I think fighters and rogues deserve to two weapon fight, so in my campaign I'll give the option to fighters and rogues to take Twin Strike as long as they have at least Dex 13. That or I'll come up with at-will powers for both classes that make use of two weapons.

You could also allow a multiclass power swap feat to swap out an At-Will attack. That would be more balanced.

Vazzaroth
2008-06-07, 02:32 AM
RE: 2 bastardsword rangers in 3.5= Two weapon fighting, Oversized TWF. 2 feats, and you are as effective as one with a longsword and shortsword.


I would love the chance to re-roll a missed attack when twf. Also, I don't have my books yet, so if there is a power for that already... yay.