My thoughts on 4e...THIS IS NOT HOW IT LOOKS LIKE!

[dsmiles]

Hah - tricked you. I am a 4e bot, programmed by WotC to troll forums whenever a 3.5 vs. 4e thread starts up and defend 4e in an attempt to bring WotC more money. I must say that 4e is better than 3.5 in all ways and default to "but its more balanced!" if I feel that someone is bringing up a good point.

Cleverbot is...clever.

[BlckDv]

I'm actually going to attempt an honest answer to the OP, and see if I can be clear, as I don't think the answer needs to involve editions in any way.

As I understand your general point, the question is:

"If I try Game X and do not like it, is it not Okay for me to share that opinion as freely as a person who does like it?"

If I am wrong on that point, please let me know, as it will moot my below arguments.

In response, I would say that voicing said opinion is just fine and indeed reasonable, however their is an implicit (or in this case even explicit) continuance that voicing an opinion is equal to making a thread on a message board. I do not agree with this.

When one creates a thread, it is a given that the goal is to elicit replies and have a conversation, if you wish to make statements without the desire for reply or rebuttal, a blog would make far more sense than a message board.

That said, let's look at possible setups of posters having an opinion of Game X.

1. I like Game X, can other people help me like it more?
This is a reasonable position to start a thread, such as help with a build, looking for more game materials, help with plots, etc.

2. I like Game X, but hear bad things, am I not right in what I think Game X is?
A player who likes FATAL but then learns that they have been playing WH40K and the Gamemaster called it FATAL as a cruel joke benefits from learning this.

3. I like Game X, what else might I like?
Players looking to try something new can help others assist them by giving an example of what they like, to help people know what types of games to suggest.

4. I like Game X, just wanted to tell you.
Not really cool. This doesn't really give any hooks for ways others can help or a direction for conversation. With a possible exception if you are trying to make others aware of a game they may not know exists.

5. I do not like Game X, why do you?
Possibly okay, if you really mean the second part. If I discover that looking at something with fresh ideas changes how it is received by me, maybe I can enjoy it too, or at least understand why other people do.

6. I do not like Game X, neither should you.
Not really cool, very likely to cause flamewars.

7. I do not like Game X, am I misunderstanding something?
Can be okay. A player who thought he joined a WH40K group but is really playing FATAL might like to know that WH40K may not really suck.

8. I do not like Game X, just saying.
Not really okay, like the I like Game X above, this doesn't open the door for any sort of real conversation or provide a way to talk that isn't just "Well.. I do!" which helps no-one. Sharing this opnion in one of the other types of threads is fine, but making a threead just for it is not really productive.

Hope that helps.

[Tyndmyr]

Cleverbot is...clever.

Heh, that is an epic derail.

In the DC area myself, as is at least one other giantitp'er I know in RL. Popular area for gamers. If you decide to do the meetup thing, you might get more milage outta a seperate thread, though.

[Esser-Z]

That's sort of the problem again. Your class solely says what you do in 4e (so if there's a rogue in the party, you can't have another rogue; am I correct?). You could have as much as three wizards in a party in 3e and they'd all be quite useful. The same goes for five fighters. Or five barbarians even (each would have a different totem). None of those are multiclassed.

Well, he became useless because he dropped multiple spell levels behind as a wizard while having no divine spells of note. And died several times. So...

But, yeah, in general, you *can* run more than one of the same class and still play a part. Can work out real nicely--Red Oni, Blue Oni type situation maybe!

[tcrudisi]

Well, he became useless because he dropped multiple spell levels behind as a wizard while having no divine spells of note. And died several times. So...

But, yeah, in general, you *can* run more than one of the same class and still play a part. Can work out real nicely--Red Oni, Blue Oni type situation maybe!

There was an incredible group build on the 4e charop board where someone created 5 Barbarians which can out-heal, out-last, and out-damage any other party of 5. It was kinda sick... but beautiful to behold.

And while you may not want more than 1 of each class, you can easily do it. In fact, 2 rogues would make great partners since they would become flanking buddies. Furthermore, each class has a smaller subset, so each class plays a little bit differently depending on your smaller role.

Using the wizard example, you could have a Genasi Wizard (AoE damage on par with a Sorc), an Orb Wizard (to lock down multiple foes) and a Tome of Readiness Wizard (to be prepared for any encounter while bringing some decent single-target lockdown). Heck, 5 Wizards would rock together using Storm Pillar shenanigans.

[Esser-Z]

Well, I'm discussing 3.5e, in that post. I'm totally cool with repeated classes. Like I said, can be fun dynamics.

Someday, I want to play one of a pair of rogues who practice their skills pranking and stealing from each other, constantly evolving new strategies to one up the other.

[SpekterofDavid]

Hmmmmmm. I was hoping this wouldn't devolve to this but it did. Although a roundabout way of understanding but here it is: Both (Pro and Con) arguments about 4e are correct. Its just a matter of perspective. You can view poison damage as a nonsensical piece of rubbish or as something that makes alot of sense. As much as I want to scream "4e is stupid it doesnt make sense lols 4e tecj sycks ya" I realized that it all depends on what you want and how you view something. In fact I realized that even 3e/Pathfinder doesn't fulfill my cravings for realist-ism. So I decided to create my own RPG. Anyway People alot of stuff doesn't make sense in dnd4e but hey its a game, it can never cover everything, for that we have life...

[Meta]

Hmmmmmm. I was hoping this wouldn't devolve to this but it did. Although a roundabout way of understanding but here it is: Both (Pro and Con) arguments about 4e are correct. Its just a matter of perspective. You can view poison damage as a nonsensical piece of rubbish or as something that makes alot of sense. As much as I want to scream "4e is stupid it doesnt make sense lols 4e tecj sycks ya" I realized that it all depends on what you want and how you view something. In fact I realized that even 3e/Pathfinder doesn't fulfill my cravings for realist-ism. So I decided to create my own RPG. Anyway People alot of stuff doesn't make sense in dnd4e but hey its a game, it can never cover everything, for that we have life...

It makes absolutely 0 sense that I can have the lowest strength in the party and swing my full blade the hardest. It's still bad***. Pretty much any character with a stat over 20 shouldn't make sense, they're all beyond every human we've seen in recorded history.

So yea, it's not realistic at all, you're right. I think where your wrong though is assuming realism in a fantasy RPG is ideal. The word you're looking for is verisimilitude I believe. Or basically how well aspects of the game makes sense within the context of the rest of the game. That is what more game designers try to achieve and what almost all 'gamers' I know want to experience.

That said, its entirely possible that isn't what you want and you would like a fictional world build strictly on the same universal laws you witness outside your bedroom window. In that case I would consider leaving ALL versions of DnD for awhile and looking at 'realistic' RPGs or what other moniker they go by as I'm afraid I don't know; I've never been interested in developing a world that I already experience, quite happily I assure you, the vast majority of my waking hours.

Edited for a weird spacing issue

[SpekterofDavid]

It makes absolutely 0 sense that I can have the lowest strength in the party and swing my full blade the hardest. It's still bad***. Pretty much any character with a stat over 20 shouldn't make sense, they're all beyond every human we've seen in recorded history.

So yea, it's not realistic at all, you're right. I think where your wrong though is assuming realism in a fantasy RPG is ideal. The word you're looking for is verisimilitude I believe. Or basically how well aspects of the game makes sense within the context of the rest of the game. That is what more game designers try to achieve and what almost all 'gamers' I know want to experience.

That said, its entirely possible that isn't what you want and you would like a fictional world build strictly on the same universal laws you witness outside your bedroom window. In that case I would consider leaving ALL versions of DnD for awhile and looking at 'realistic' RPGs or what other moniker they go by as I'm afraid I don't know; I've never been interested in developing a world that I already experience, quite happily I assure you, the vast majority of my waking hours.

Edited for a weird spacing issue

Dude I know, I know of making sense within a fictional realm. I know that over 20 ect strengths usual does not make sense.

[Meta]

Dude I know, I know of making sense within a fictional realm. I know that over 20 ect strengths usual does not make sense.

Okay then, but many of your posts contain the words or ideas "realism" and "sense" so I tried to elaborate on those ideas to make more coherent 'sides' to the argument because I don't always follow your train of thought and perhaps others might have a similar issue.

Just being helpful

Edit: ninajed the mod so well, didn't even make note of my ninja powers! Also three arrows in a round is definitely not the highest total. It's over 10 sir

[The Glyphstone]

The better word to use is usually 'versimilitude'. It's 'realism', but applied to a set of rules and laws that are different than ours.

I.E. a Teleport or Fireball spell. Teleportation is (for all intents and purposes) impossible in our world. Thus, for us, Teleportation is not realistic and doesn't make sense. In D&D, though, teleportation is perfectly acceptable and normal, it is realistic by the terms of its own universe. Fire conducts heat in our universe, but in the D&D universe, a Fireball spell doesn't burn anything outside its radius - this is unrealistic for us, but acceptable for them. But a BBEG who can Teleport into and out of a 'shielded' dungeon that players cannot Teleport into or out of (to dredge an example from a recent thread) is violating the established laws of the universe, and breaking versimilitude, the ability of the players to accept what is going on as 'normal'.

[Tequila Sunrise]

And Second The Limited amount of roleplaying...

I think you mean 'realism,' or its politically correct cousin, veri...whatever.

...You can argue that there is roleplaying in everything but exactly. You can find an excuse for anything. You shouldnt have to find excuses for stuff like Poison Damage, And Psychic damage (Replacing Constitution damage and Wisdom damage respectivly). How Does a Moral boost heal my poison damage? Or how does it heal Psychic trauma? Or what about the BS Power system for marial powers. I can only launch 3 arrows at a time at highest lv? What kind of a wimp is this?
And I understand you can say Well the moral boost helps you forget about the poison. But we shouldn't have to make excuses. I like the game but I prefer a more Simulation feel rather than war game feel so yeah. dont hate the game. Its Ok. If you dont like anything about my post contact me and I will change it.

Yeah, D&D just isn't about realism. In any edition.

The simplest explanation for why your high level fighter can swim through lava (3e) or why your warlord can heal poison damage with a shout (4e) is: you're magical. Even if your class doesn't mention anything about magic, you are. You're an awesome demigod of action, who can survive lethal injuries and perform feats of impossible cartoonish proportions, because your very body and soul are MAGICAL. And you know it!

PS: Your country is spelled 'Ukraine' in English.

[TraadosDarksund]

Ok, my opinion of the 4th edition.... Not as great as people make it out to be. Alot of the rules help to prevent, say, 10 level characters from becoming gods, which is great. But the combat system has become as complex as Nale's multiclass'. My view of 3.5: great....but Rigged beyond beleif. An example of this may be, say, 2nd level characters killing a gargantuan black dragon. And so I came up with a brilliant compromise of this, which is taking some of the rules of 4e and mixing them with 3.5 to prevent broken characters but keep the grand aspects of 3.5e. And keep bards and most of the other classes that got killed of due to no one knowing exactly HOW to use them to the party's advantage. I am not biased, I've played both versions and enjoyed them both very much....but I was a little dissapointed by 4e.

[Ashiel]

The better word to use is usually 'versimilitude'. It's 'realism', but applied to a set of rules and laws that are different than ours.

I.E. a Teleport or Fireball spell. Teleportation is (for all intents and purposes) impossible in our world. Thus, for us, Teleportation is not realistic and doesn't make sense. In D&D, though, teleportation is perfectly acceptable and normal, it is realistic by the terms of its own universe. Fire conducts heat in our universe, but in the D&D universe, a Fireball spell doesn't burn anything outside its radius - this is unrealistic for us, but acceptable for them. But a BBEG who can Teleport into and out of a 'shielded' dungeon that players cannot Teleport into or out of (to dredge an example from a recent thread) is violating the established laws of the universe, and breaking versimilitude, the ability of the players to accept what is going on as 'normal'.

Well said, Mr. Glyphstone, and very true.

It's this kind of verisimilitude that I missed with playing 4E. For the most part, 3E is very stable in the way its rules apply to everyone. NPCs and PCs used pretty much the same rules, and can often possess the same abilities as PCs (monster HD are essentially class levels in "monster type", and if someone uses a spell then you probably can too). While its rules don't always mimic real life perfectly, they a consistent internally and often make sense within the system.

In 4E, there is a completely different rule-set for PCs and NPCs. You lack countless options that have been prevalent in D&D since its conception; such as the ability to use animate dead or even charm person style effects. The core 4E monster manual is loaded with undead enemies, skeletons, zombies, and the like; but no way to create or animate them beyond GM fiat. It breaks verisimilitude every time you encounter a wizard with an army of undead mooks (a classic trope). "Oh it's not a wizard, it's a necromancer" - "Well I wanna play a necromancer instead." - "Sorry, there are no necromancers in this game" - "But we just fought one!" - "That's an enemy, it uses different rules than you".

Other things that make it bad roleplaying system for my group is the lack of rules self-contained rules for things like hardness. In Core 4E, you can punch your way through an adamantine door (or anything really) because they include rules for object hit points but there is nothing for dealing with how hard something is to damage - just how much damage it can sustain.

Things like dual-wielding not being an option without special powers gained in splat books also rubs me the wrong way really bad. A 30th level fighter (or anything except a ranger, actually) cannot dual wield without house-ruling; which just seems like such a failure to me. A failure because you have to house rule something so simple, that virtually every RPG system I have ever played covers dual-wielding in its core.

So it doesn't even feel like a good roleplaying game in general to me.

[Esser-Z]

I absolutely agree, Ashiel, with the caveat that I do enjoy playing 4e. It's just not what I'll looking for in D&D.


I'll throw Firecube and Tenser's Mischievous Gravity Vortex (aka Grease) into the verisimilitude issues pile.

[tcrudisi]

"Oh it's not a wizard, it's a necromancer" - "Well I wanna play a necromancer instead." - "Sorry, there are no necromancers in this game" - "But we just fought one!" - "That's an enemy, it uses different rules than you".

Things like dual-wielding not being an option without special powers gained in splat books also rubs me the wrong way really bad. A 30th level fighter (or anything except a ranger, actually) cannot dual wield without house-ruling; which just seems like such a failure to me. A failure because you have to house rule something so simple, that virtually every RPG system I have ever played covers dual-wielding in its core.

First, no necromancers? Level 6 ritual to create an undead that obeys your orders. Various other rituals to give you utility powers around undead (perceive the area around them, undead see you as undead, preventing undead from crossing a threshold, using a corpse as a means of teleportation) and of course, becoming a lich.

But - they can't summon undead legions to fight for them! Easy: we make you a summoning wizard and reflavor your powers to be undead. Instead of Summon Fire Warrior you now have Summon Skeleton. Etc. Mechanically they work the exact same and no house-ruling required.

Second, no dual-wielding Fighters? See Tempest Technique - a type of Fighter that specializes in using two weapons (and gets bonuses for doing so). Here are some of their powers (all of which require you to have two weapons in hand):

level 1- at-will: Dual Strike (make one attack with each weapon)
enc: Funneling Fury (make one attack with each weapon) and Surprising Stab (hit with the first, surprise the target with the second weapon)
daily: Bristling Defense (lash out at two foes, one weapon at each) and Ruinous Assault (lash out at two foes, one weapon at each)
Level 3 - Sweeping Slash (Use your primary weapon to force foes back, move adjacent to one and attack him with your off-hand)
Level 5 - Spinning Razor Strike (Slash at foe 1, shift and slash at foe 2 with off-hand weapon, shift and slash at foe 3 with both weapons) and Dancing Defense (a stance only available to fighters who duel wield, turning them into whirling death or a defensive juggernaut)
Level 7 - Hampering Flurry (attack foe with both weapons, if you hit with both, deal extra damage) and Opportunist's Rend (attack the target twice when he does something stupid) and Twofold Torment (attack twice and deal tons of damage)
Level 9 - Punishing Storm (attack twice with your main weapon, then bash a foe to the ground with your off-hand weapon)

I was going to go all the way up to 30, but I figure the first 10 levels works nicely. And for those who don't know 4e that well - I just listed at least 1 power from each level that you get a new attack power. I would say the Fighter does have the option of fighting with two weapons and does so quite well.

[kyoryu]

First, no necromancers? Level 6 ritual to create an undead that obeys your orders. Various other rituals to give you utility powers around undead (perceive the area around them, undead see you as undead, preventing undead from crossing a threshold, using a corpse as a means of teleportation) and of course, becoming a lich.

But - they can't summon undead legions to fight for them! Easy: we make you a summoning wizard and reflavor your powers to be undead. Instead of Summon Fire Warrior you now have Summon Skeleton. Etc. Mechanically they work the exact same and no house-ruling required.

Personally, I'd be happy with fewer, broader classes. Let Ranger be a Fighter build.

Of course, that doesn't sell books.

But, I'm old-fashioned that way. We don't need Wizards! In my day, we had Magic-Users and were happy with 'em! Average 3 hit points at level 1! Get offa my lawn!

Second, no dual-wielding Fighters? See Tempest Technique - a type of Fighter that specializes in using two weapons (and gets bonuses for doing so). Here are some of their powers (all of which require you to have two weapons in hand):

In all fairness, Martial Power probably does qualify as a splat.

If you want to dual-wield with PHB1, you make a Ranger. I don't necessarily see a problem with that.

Also, it's not like D&D has always had dual-wielding as a core concept. I don't think it existed in AD&D, and I'm not even sure it was generally available in 2nd ed.

[The New Bruceski]

Any one-handed weapon class can dual-wield just by picking up a second weapon. Your character is ambidextrous and can use either weapon for an attack at any time. In addition there are feats to make the off-hand weapon add some static bonuses, which represents using your second weapon to help the attack or defense of your first one.

There's more to dual-wielding than simply taking a weapon damage and multiplying by 2. It exists in 4e, even if it doesn't exist in the way you think it *should*. Rangers just happen to have developed a fluid fighting style that comes from being Aragorn clones some "in tune with nature" stuff. I find it particularly useful for a rogue, even if they don't specialize in daggers they can carry one in the off-hand for the extra accuracy and range attacks.

[AtopTheMountain]

Rangers just happen to have developed a fluid fighting style that comes from being Aragorn clones some "in tune with nature" stuff.

When did Aragorn ever dual-wield anything?

EDIT: Other than his sword and a torch.

[Esser-Z]

If you want to dual-wield with PHB1, you make a Ranger. I don't necessarily see a problem with that.

Because I want to be a man who holds off hordes with a pair of weapons, standing strong to protect his allies, not a man who dashes about killing foes.

Bruceski, I don't get to actually support dual wielding in my mechanics that way. Nothing about what my sheet says I do actually has any real connection to TWF.

[Meta]

I believe this was already covered earlier in this thread, but the "rangers being the only dual-wielders" idea is definitely a myth. Any class can dual wield. Rangers just happen to do it better than most if not all. That's not a bad thing, there's almost always someone who's the best at an aspect of play. Assuming you're dexterous enough, take as many twf feats as you'd like.

Reiteration: anyone can dual wield.

Also, 4e focuses more on the 'light' side of Heros probably to further their push into mainstream culture and to avoid being called the devil's game like has happened in the past. So things like necromancers and blackguard were probably not very high on the priority list. Though I believe a splat book coming out will have shadowy heroes presented

[Leeham]

Also, it's not like D&D has always had dual-wielding as a core concept. I don't think it existed in AD&D, and I'm not even sure it was generally available in 2nd ed.

If I'm not mistaken, only rangers could dual-wield.

[Esser-Z]

Others can dual wield, sure. But only Rangers get to attack extra, which is pretty much the ultimate mechanical representation of dual wielding.

[Ashiel]

First, no necromancers? Level 6 ritual to create an undead that obeys your orders. Various other rituals to give you utility powers around undead (perceive the area around them, undead see you as undead, preventing undead from crossing a threshold, using a corpse as a means of teleportation) and of course, becoming a lich.

But - they can't summon undead legions to fight for them! Easy: we make you a summoning wizard and reflavor your powers to be undead. Instead of Summon Fire Warrior you now have Summon Skeleton. Etc. Mechanically they work the exact same and no house-ruling required.

Second, no dual-wielding Fighters? See Tempest Technique - a type of Fighter that specializes in using two weapons (and gets bonuses for doing so). Here are some of their powers (all of which require you to have two weapons in hand):

level 1- at-will: Dual Strike (make one attack with each weapon)
enc: Funneling Fury (make one attack with each weapon) and Surprising Stab (hit with the first, surprise the target with the second weapon)
daily: Bristling Defense (lash out at two foes, one weapon at each) and Ruinous Assault (lash out at two foes, one weapon at each)
Level 3 - Sweeping Slash (Use your primary weapon to force foes back, move adjacent to one and attack him with your off-hand)
Level 5 - Spinning Razor Strike (Slash at foe 1, shift and slash at foe 2 with off-hand weapon, shift and slash at foe 3 with both weapons) and Dancing Defense (a stance only available to fighters who duel wield, turning them into whirling death or a defensive juggernaut)
Level 7 - Hampering Flurry (attack foe with both weapons, if you hit with both, deal extra damage) and Opportunist's Rend (attack the target twice when he does something stupid) and Twofold Torment (attack twice and deal tons of damage)
Level 9 - Punishing Storm (attack twice with your main weapon, then bash a foe to the ground with your off-hand weapon)

I was going to go all the way up to 30, but I figure the first 10 levels works nicely. And for those who don't know 4e that well - I just listed at least 1 power from each level that you get a new attack power. I would say the Fighter does have the option of fighting with two weapons and does so quite well.

I don't recall seeing any of that stuff in my PHB, MM, or DMG; which is exactly my point. I don't want a system that can't even cover basic things without a variety of splat books. You have to have a splat-book to get the option to dual-wield as something other than a ranger; and you have to have a splat book and web content to have a wizard that's something other than "I throw teh fireballz". Far too much stuff is missing for me to like it.

And I really, really wanted to like it. I was excited about 4th edition. I even tried a few games prior to the release of the game, since the pdfs were leaked; but I became disenchanted shortly after.

I'm not paying out huge amounts of money for a sub-par game, when instead of adding new stuff, it's patching things that are incomplete with the main. Everything you named is splat-book material, and so I don't really care; because I said every time that you "can't even do this in core".

[Tiki Snakes]

You have to have a splat-book to get the option to dual-wield as something other than a ranger;

You don't want the option to duel weild. Anyone not using a two-handed weapon can duel weild in phb1 only. It's easy. pick up two weapons, you are now dual weilding. Attack with your prefered as required. I'm pretty sure there are PHB1 powers that include secondary attacks that could quite happily be made with a second weapon, even.
You want more benefits? Take the feats, get AC and Attack bonuses, etc.

What you are asking for and missing is free attacks purely from having a second weapon. Which the Ranger, and anyone taking ranger multiclass powers gets even in phb1 only.

The two things are very different and frankly unrelated. That's not to say it's invalid to dislike 4e because weilding two weapons doesn't let you attack more often, or that it's wrong to dislike a system which has a lot of supplementary material, but it does help to keep some thing straight I think.

[Meta]

Others can dual wield, sure. But only Rangers get to attack extra, which is pretty much the ultimate mechanical representation of dual wielding.

Twf, TW defense, TW flurry and TW opening all seem pretty indicitive of twf and any one can take those. Plus a lot of classes can dual wield for those added attacks you like. But really it's a bit nit picky, everyone can dual wield and even snag some of those extra attacks but some do it better than others. I'd like for a dual wielding salad fork mage to be effective but alas.

Edit: what tiki said is right

[Ashiel]

Twf, TW defense, TW flurry and TW opening all seem pretty indicitive of twf and any one can take those. Plus a lot of classes can dual wield for those added attacks you like. But really it's a bit nit picky, everyone can dual wield and even snag some of those extra attacks but some do it better than others. I'd like for a dual wielding salad fork mage to be effective but alas.

Edit: what tiki said is right

So basically you're spending multiple feats for benefits that are arguably just putting you on par with how you would be by wielding a 2 hander or a sword & board? Yeah...right.

Also, yeah, "dual wielding" implies using both of the weapons. Holding a weapon in a hand and not using it is no more dual-wielding than holding something else in your hand, because you're not wielding it. To wield would suggest use; but you're only wielding one at a time. Alternating sure; but wielding? No.

Definition of Wield

So no. You can't.
And something really bugs me that I, a lowly commoner who isn't out fighting dragons and what-not, can strike effectively with two different weapons - as a hobby - within 3 to 6 seconds from one another and a 30th level godlike being of war can't...unless you have that splatbook.

[Tiki Snakes]

If you are only weilding something whilst actively attacking with it, then Rangers can't Duel-Weild, and neither can 99% of things in 3.5.

Infact, I think only a few Fighter Powers and Whirling barbarian powers might let you attack with both simultainiously.

Otherwise you are just alternating within 6 seconds.

[Esser-Z]

No, I'm attack with both during the same attack action, with separate attacks that I could not simply assign to one weapon.

[Tequila Sunrise]

I'd just like to point out that while any 3e dirt farmer can attack twice per round by dual wielding, there're a very limited number of classes which actually benefit from dual wielding. [Over say, wielding a two handed weapon.] For every other character, it's a trap option. And depending on your PoV, less options may be better than trap options.