4e: fighting with two weapons?

[fireinthedust]

Are there any restrictions to using two weapons? I don't see any entries or feats regarding the ability to do this; only a damage bonus, etc. for my main weapon.

Does this mean my fighter could, with a bit of multi-classing, take blade cascade? Without, I mean, building up to it in any other way?

[1of3]

If you do not consider that little bit of multiclassing a restriction, you're correct. Your fighter can learn Blade Cascade.

But note that Blade Cascade got errata.

[Jack_of_Spades]

If you do not consider that little bit of multiclassing a restriction, you're correct. Your fighter can learn Blade Cascade.

But note that Blade Cascade got errata.

It's still pretty good. I miss 3e and how you could have a greataxe, but make offhand attacks with armor spikes.

[Tadanori Oyama]

The restriction is power based. No one can just attack with two weapons in a single action, you have to have powers that allow you to do so. Rangers have those powers on their list but there's nothing stopping you from writing your own powers from, say, fighters that have the "you must be weilding two melee weapons" bit in there.

Just make sure you balance the benefits properly and that your DM approves.

[Covered In Bees]

It's still pretty good. I miss 3e and how you could have a greataxe, but make offhand attacks with armor spikes.

You miss it? I thought it was blatantly ridiculous and only devalued "normal" TWF.

[fireinthedust]

So the powers that have two weapons in them are all you need; so I don't need to do anything else for a build except get that power somehow (or write my own fighter feats; unnecessary, if I wait until a splat book!)

I'm guessing a drizzt build would be easy to make now (good or bad excluded, I'm just saying one could if one wanted to... not that I would... again...)

[Covered In Bees]

So the powers that have two weapons in them are all you need; so I don't need to do anything else for a build except get that power somehow (or write my own fighter feats; unnecessary, if I wait until a splat book!)

The powers are Fantastic Drizzt-Style TWFing. The TWF and TW Defense feats are more realistic TWFing, with the offhand weapon being used to create openings and parry.

[Tadanori Oyama]

Most of the two weapon attack powers hinder you in some way as far as damage. For example, Twin Strike is an at-will for rangers that allows them to make two attacks (one with the weapon in each hand) but they don't gain their strength bonus to damage (or dex if done with a ranged attack).

Two weapons is a striker role trick, in my opinion so as a DM I'd be willing to hand it out to Rogues fairly easily. I'd be less willing to let Defenders, like Fighters, take powers that allow two weapon attacks.

[Artanis]

Also remember that there's using two weapons, and then there's using two weapons in the same turn. You need a specific power to allow you to attack with both weapons on one turn (such as the Ranger's Twin Strike). However, nothing is stopping you from holding two weapons so that you have two options to choose from when attacking.

For example, a Rogue can stab, stab, stab all day long with the Flaming dagger in his main hand. And then he suddenly finds a fire-resistant enemy next to him, and is mighty glad that he already has a Frost weapon drawn and in his off-hand, ready to use instead.



Of course, odds are I just made things even more confused. But hey, I tried.

...didn't try to be confusing, I mean. Tried to...aw, screw it:smallwink:

[Tadanori Oyama]

There's benefits to that too. Taking feats like Two Weapon Fighting gives you bonuses to damage when your holding two weapons, even if you can only attack with one. Keeping a throwable weapon (handaxe, dagger, etc...) in your off-hand also gives you that ranged option if you want it.

[Kurald Galain]

I'm guessing a drizzt build would be easy to make now (good or bad excluded, I'm just saying one could if one wanted to... not that I would... again...)
Yes, very easy. The two-weapon ranger is almost automatically a drizz't.


There's benefits to that too. Taking feats like Two Weapon Fighting gives you bonuses to damage when your holding two weapons,
However, that feat is strictly inferior to weapon focus.

[Blackdrop]

How is one inferior to the other? They both stack.

[Tadanori Oyama]

However, that feat is strictly inferior to weapon focus.

That is true. Luckily, he can take both; the damage bonus is untyped so it stakes with feat-type bonus from Weapon Focus.


How is one inferior to the other? They both stack.

It's "inferior" because Weapon Focus grows with each Tier (+1 Herotic, +2 Paragon, +3 Epic). Two Weapon Fighting is a static +1.

There is, of course, the problem that some damaging feats (Eladrin Soldier, Dwarven Weapon Training) also provide feat bonuses and therefore don't stack with Weapon Focus.

[Blackdrop]

Ah, ok!

So, why can't you just take both. It isn't like any of the other feats shout "TAKE ME!".

[Tadanori Oyama]

You can take both and if your weilding two weapons and the one you attack with is the one you selected for Weapon Focus, you get +2 to damage. Makes a good choice for characters who don't carry a shield or a onehanded ranged weapon (handcrossbow or sling) like Brawny Rogues, especailly when you get Two Weapon Defense as well (+1 to AC and Reflex when using two weapons, same as a light shield).

But if your an Eladrin Rogue, you'd be better off with Two Weapon Fighting and Eladrin Soldier (if you use a longsword) because of the +2. Same with a Dwarf using an axe or hammer. Until you hit Epic Tier (when the Weapon Focus bonus reaches +3) the racial feat is a "better" choice.

[wodan46]

One thing I think might be interesting is if the Two Weapon Fighting feat gave +1 Attack rather than +1 damage. This would make for a more interesting choice between fighting with a 1 hand and a Shield (+2 to AC/Reflex), a 2 hander(1 larger damage die or reach), or two 1 handers(+1 attack, spare weapon for throwing), along with the choice between swords(+1 attack) and non-swords(+1 larger damage die), allowing a nice set of around 7 options.

[Covered In Bees]

One thing I think might be interesting is if the Two Weapon Fighting feat gave +1 Attack rather than +1 damage. This would make for a more interesting choice between fighting with a 1 hand and a Shield (+2 to AC/Reflex), a 2 hander(1 larger damage die or reach), or two 1 handers(+1 attack, spare weapon for throwing), along with the choice between swords(+1 attack) and non-swords(+1 larger damage die), allowing a nice set of around 7 options.

Suddenly rogues holding a dagger in one hand and something else in another, taking TWF, would be getting +*5* to attack!

[CarpeGuitarrem]

Suddenly rogues holding a dagger in one hand and something else in another, taking TWF, would be getting +*5* to attack!
Oh, wow...

*drools*

See, there's a big difference between +1 attack and +1 damage, and this right here shows it.

[Tadanori Oyama]

Feats generally don't give to hit bonuses because 4th addtion models propicency with a weapon by damage rather than accuracy like 3rd edition did.

Very few things in the game give to hit bonuses now, which makes features like the Fighter's inherent bonus and Prime Shot (for Warlocks and Rogues) quite appealing.

Getting an additional +1 is usually a big deal. Combat Advantage gives a +2. A +5 ontop of "normal" to hit would be almost a sure thing.

[wodan46]

Hmm, perhaps if the Two Weapon Fighting Feat worked like this:

If you miss the enemy's defense by 1 with your primary weapon, you may instead hit them with your offhand weapon. You may not use the offhand weapon again for the duration of the power.

There. It gives an effective +1 to attack, but the damage is going to be on the weak side, and it does NOT mesh well with Rangers

[Tadanori Oyama]

It's a little complex but it might work. I think I'd make it a Paragon Feat though, have it in addition to the base Two Weapon Fighting from Heroic Tier.

[Colmarr]

There is, of course, the problem that some damaging feats (Eladrin Soldier, Dwarven Weapon Training) also provide feat bonuses and therefore don't stack with Weapon Focus.

Not to mention that weapon focus only works on one weapon type, whereas the damage bonus from TWF applies to any weapon type, and thus offers more short-term flexibility*.

*"Short-term" because you can re-train Weapon Focus each level if you need to.


Suddenly rogues holding a dagger in one hand and something else in another, taking TWF, would be getting +*5* to attack!

How so?

[TheOOB]

Really there just needs to be a couple more feats that use two-weapon fighting as a prerequisite. Two-weapon fighting provides a useful bonus, but in and of itself it isn't all that great, it is, however, a great gateway feat where lots of feats could be based on it, balanced by the fact that you took a sub-par feat to get them.

[OneFamiliarFace]

Really there just needs to be a couple more feats that use two-weapon fighting as a prerequisite. Two-weapon fighting provides a useful bonus, but in and of itself it isn't all that great, it is, however, a great gateway feat where lots of feats could be based on it, balanced by the fact that you took a sub-par feat to get them.

I always did like the TWF tree. Though I think they are trying to avoid the "screw yourself now for benefits later thing." Because, as you can retrain your feats now, you can always wait until the better feat becomes available, and then retrain to take it and its prerequisite, without having to really suffer through having the lesser feat to begin with.

[Kurald Galain]

So, why can't you just take both. It isn't like any of the other feats shout "TAKE ME!".
Depends on your class. For a rogue, I quickly run out of feat slots.


4th addtion models propicency with a weapon by damage rather than accuracy like 3rd edition did.
I'm not sure what you mean, but doesn't proficiency give a +3 to hit (or +2 or +4 depending on weapon)?


Not to mention that weapon focus only works on one weapon type, whereas the damage bonus from TWF applies to any weapon type
That's true, but not very important since pretty much all characters stick with one weapon all the time anyway (especially once you get a magical version of the weapon of your choice).

[Artanis]

I'm not sure what you mean, but doesn't proficiency give a +3 to hit (or +2 or +4 depending on weapon)?
Yeah, it adds to-hit.

[Dannoth]

Fighting with two weapons - Only Via powers. (see rangers "Twin-strike")

[Tadanori Oyama]

I'm not sure what you mean, but doesn't proficiency give a +3 to hit (or +2 or +4 depending on weapon)?

Okay, this might be tricky to work correctly. Please forgive me if I go on for awhile. If it doesn't make sense I'll try again.

"A Fighter won't nessicarily be rolling 1d8 for his whole adventuring career". Words out of Dave Noonan's own mouth. It was in one of the podcasts where they answered questions about 4E a few months ago. The first or second Q&A, I can't remember which one.

I don't mean the literal "proficiency bonus" granted in the game. Noonan said they where modeling "proficiency", that is how effectivally one weilds their weapon, through damage rather than 'to hit'. That's also why every class advances along the same 'to hit' table with the 1/2 level system. When he said that they hadn't released alot of deals about powers (I think) so they hadn't shown 2[W] and such yet.

4E uses powers that deal more dice in damage (as well as any other special effects) to show a Fighter's (or other class) increased skill with their weapon. A 2nd Level Fighter with 18 strength and a 2nd Level Wizard with 18 intellegence have almost the same 'to hit' with (most of) their powers: +1 for level, +4 for ability mod. The Fighter gets a +1 as a class feature, so it always has a tiny edge but it's not like 3.5 where the Wizard's 'to hit' is always half of the Fighter's.

So, to summarize, 4E measures skill with a weapon through the amount of damage you deal, not your 'to hit' bonus so most feats and items focus on allowing you to do more damage.

[Artanis]

*stuff*
Yeah, that definitely makes more sense.

Problems like this tend to come up when an Official In-Game Term has a different "usual" meaning. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0012.html) :smallwink:

[Tadanori Oyama]

Yeah, that definitely makes more sense.

Problems like this tend to come up when an Official In-Game Term has a different "usual" meaning. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0012.html) :smallwink:

HA! Well said.

[The_Werebear]

The key benefits of Two Weapon fighting are as follows.

1) Two Weapon Defense, which allows someone to effectively have a light shield if they are non proficient.

2) Have backup weapons with abilities that you want.

3) Getting the most out of Ranger Multiclasses.

I tend to like it a lot more than I did in 3.5. It is one of those things that just feels better to do. So far, I've managed to make two pretty decent TWF'ers.

[Blackdrop]

3) Getting the most out of Ranger Multiclasses.

If your playing a half-elf sure, but if you multiclass to Ranger all you get access to is the hunter's quarry 1/encounter. You don't get any powers from the hunter class & you can't qualify for any paragon paths, since you don't get the Ranger Fighting Style class feature.

[The_Werebear]

If your playing a half-elf sure, but if you multiclass to Ranger all you get access to is the hunter's quarry 1/encounter. You don't get any powers from the hunter class & you can't qualify for any paragon paths, since you don't get the Ranger Fighting Style class feature.

You can still use the power feats to pull some of the better ranger melee powers. That's the only way you'll get any use at all out of the multiclass.

[Dausuul]

4E uses powers that deal more dice in damage (as well as any other special effects) to show a Fighter's (or other class) increased skill with their weapon. A 2nd Level Fighter with 18 strength and a 2nd Level Wizard with 18 intellegence have almost the same 'to hit' with (most of) their powers: +1 for level, +4 for ability mod. The Fighter gets a +1 as a class feature, so it always has a tiny edge but it's not like 3.5 where the Wizard's 'to hit' is always half of the Fighter's.

Actually, the fighter is usually 2-3 points ahead of the wizard due to weapon proficiency bonuses. Of course, most fighter powers target AC, which tends to be 2-3 points higher than other defenses.