[4e] Dual-Wield rules variant

[zorba1994]

Okay, so my player wanted to play a rogue, but also wanted to dual-wield. Not the sissy 4e way of dual wielding where you hold an off-hand weapon, but real dual-wielding a la 3.5

I've decided to replace the standard two-weapon fighting feat (+1 to mh when holding two weapons) with a -4/-4 when holding two weapons (as opposed to my also homebrewed -5/-5 without feats).

My logic is as follows, assuming AC 15 with no bonuses there is:

• a 30% chance to hit normally
• a 10% chance to hit with two weapons, and a .25% chance to hit twice
• a 20% chance to hit with two weapons and the feat, with a 1% chance to hit twice.

I figure this is a fair way to play, possibly with additional Paragon and Epic tier feats reducing the penalty to -3/-3 and -1/-1 respectively (-3/-3 is slightly better than holding one weapon, but I figure that burning a feat justifies this).

I'll keep the two weapon defense (bonus to defenses when holding two weapons), but change the prerequisite to my new two weapon fighting.

Are there any gaping wholes in logic I've missed?

[Reverent-One]

What exactly does dual wielding do in this case? Does it let him take multiple standard actions?

[zorba1994]

What exactly does dual wielding do in this case? Does it let him take multiple standard actions?

It would let him make two light blade attacks against the same target as a standard action.

Though now I have an idea for a paragon/epic tier feat that lets you make them against different adjacent targets...

[Reverent-One]

It would let him make two light blade attacks against the same target as a standard action.

Though now I have an idea for a paragon/epic tier feat that lets you make them against different adjacent targets...

Yeah...that's not a good idea. Rogues especially can get really accurate if they try by pumping their attack bonus (an example being rogues that hit level equivalent enemies on a 2), so you're pretty much letting him attack twice as often as the other team members while being little to no worse off.

[Sipex]

I'd just let him take the Ranger's Twin Strike attack power as one of his at-wills.

The flavour still fits, just make it exclusive to his two blades. Sneak attack damage would only trigger on one of the attacks so you're good all around.

edit: And make it based off DEX since all Rogue powers seem to be.

[vasharanpaladin]

Okay, so my player wanted to play a rogue, but also wanted to dual-wield. Not the sissy 4e way of dual wielding where you hold an off-hand weapon, but real dual-wielding a la 3.5

I've decided to replace the standard two-weapon fighting feat (+1 to mh when holding two weapons) with a -4/-4 when holding two weapons (as opposed to my also homebrewed -5/-5 without feats).

My logic is as follows, assuming AC 15 with no bonuses there is:

• a 30% chance to hit normally
• a 10% chance to hit with two weapons, and a .25% chance to hit twice
• a 20% chance to hit with two weapons and the feat, with a 1% chance to hit twice.

I figure this is a fair way to play, possibly with additional Paragon and Epic tier feats reducing the penalty to -3/-3 and -1/-1 respectively (-3/-3 is slightly better than holding one weapon, but I figure that burning a feat justifies this).

I'll keep the two weapon defense (bonus to defenses when holding two weapons), but change the prerequisite to my new two weapon fighting.

Are there any gaping wholes in logic I've missed?

No part of this is a good idea. If you want 3.5-esque dual-wielding, play 3.5. The basic tenet of 4e is that the Rule of Cool wins the day and players should not be penalized for doing this sort of thing. Especially when you consider that there are now four entire builds that your houserules turn into trap options.

EDIT: Also, Two-Weapon Fighting is +1 damage to both weapons now.

[KillianHawkeye]

So how does this affect powers that already grant mulitple attacks? Now they get twice as many? Or you can only do it with basic attacks, thus making it useless for high-level powers? Either way is bad.

The correct answer for a player wanting to play a stealthy guy that attacks with two weapons is to play a Ranger. You can still call yourself a "thief" or whatever. You can even multiclass Rogue to get the Thievery skill.

[Zansumkai]

So how does this affect powers that already grant mulitple attacks? Now they get twice as many? Or you can only do it with basic attacks, thus making it useless for high-level powers? Either way is bad.

The correct answer for a player wanting to play a stealthy guy that attacks with two weapons is to play a Ranger. You can still call yourself a "thief" or whatever. You can even multiclass Rogue to get the Thievery skill.

Have to agree here. Especially with the hybrid class rules in PHB3 there should be no reason why your player can't build a perfectly serviceable two-blade rouge (or warlord or battlemind or pretty much anything that uses 1-handed weapons) without a bunch of house-ruling. If you must do it yourself I would say you'd be better off trying to build a character theme around duel-wielding, ala Dark Sun. Heck, poke around the interwebs a little and you might find someone else has already taken a swing at it.