dual-wielding in 4e

[Pirate_King]

Is there a point to wielding two weapons in 4e if you're not a ranger? And, if you are a ranger, is there any point in wielding anything but warhammers, battle axes, or flails, other than +1 to the proficiency bonus? I mostly like 4e, but I miss actual TWF. I re-invented the full-attack by giving everyone the ability to make an attack with their off-hand weapon if they only made a basic attack and hadn't moved that turn. Broken? hasn't seemed that way, so far. Thoughts? please, keep any posts that are strictly "blah blah this is why 3.x is better blah blah" to a minimum.

[Verosce]

While I haven't played NEARLY as much 4e as I'd like, that is one of the first things that struck me; two-weapon fighting is probably useless for anyone but a ranger.

3.5 and 4.0 both have their good points; but in being able to create a truly unique character with a bizarre method of arming themselves with any class really belongs to 3.5.

[Artanis]

Regarding non-Rangers, yes and no. You can't attack with both weapons at once unless you have a power that lets you do so (which AFAIK only Rangers get). However, you CAN attack with one weapon or the other with one-hand-only powers. So you can hold your main weapon in one hand, and one with a different use, such as being a thrown weapon or having a different magical property, in the other. That lets you use either one without having to draw it first. There's also some feats that give you a benefit when holding two weapons, even if you can only use one at a time.

Regarding weapon types, that +1 proficiency bonus is a very big deal in 4e. That alone makes it a harder choice than it appears at first glance. Plus, the bigger die on the weapons you mention is only an average of 1 point of damage per hit over the 1d8 weapons. The High Crit property on the Scimitar and War Pick makes up at least some of the gap, if not surpassing it (I'd have to run the numbers), and like I said, a Longsword's +1 proficiency is a big deal. The Throwing Hammer and Handaxe are pretty much worse than the rest. There's no point in the Short Sword

[ColdSepp]

Our party rogue carries a short sword and shrukin, so he can take OAs and still have range.

[Starsinger]

And parrying daggers if you want to visually dual wield but don't worry so much about swinging twice.

[Lord_Ventnor]

The New Tempest Fighter in Martial Power specializes in wielding two off-hand weapons, and gets several multiattack powers like a Ranger does.

[Kurald Galain]

Is there a point to wielding two weapons in 4e if you're not a ranger?

This probably will be ninja'd, but the answer is "not really". The two exceptions are (1) tempest fighter, and (2) dagger rogue, who can throw daggers with one hand and melee with the other. The two TWF feats aren't particularly worth it, not even for those two builds.

And, if you are a ranger, is there any point in wielding anything but warhammers, battle axes, or flails, other than +1 to the proficiency bonus?

If you are a striker, a +1 to hit is a Big Deal, so you really shouldn't be wielding anything but swords, and in particular, twin scimitars.

[Yakk]

With a feat, you can get +1 untyped damage by dual wielding, and +1 AC.

You can multiclass and splash ranger to get two-weapon powers as well.

The lack of "give up move action in exchange for attacking" was a good design decision in 4e -- it means combat is more dynamic and mobile, because you aren't giving up power for mobility (except that one crossbow feat! And a few rogue powers, etc) in the general case.

[KKL]

With a feat, you can get +1 untyped damage by dual wielding, and +1 AC.

You also get +1 Reflex too.

[Dacia Brabant]

If you are a striker, a +1 to hit is a Big Deal, so you really shouldn't be wielding anything but swords, and in particular, twin scimitars. (emphasis added)

Ugh, just...ugh. You're right unfortunately, it is the most optimal DW build currently in 4e, but still. It makes me long for the days when Rangers were chiefly seen as bow hunters, a la Aragorn, and not brooding dual-scimitar-wielding anti-heroes.

But yeah, there's always multiclass Ranger feats, which retain a bit of the sense of the ever-popular dipping two levels into Ranger in 3.x to get your DW on. Seems to work okay for main-class Fighters looking for something other than a greatsword.

[KKL]

Ugh, just...ugh. You're right unfortunately, it is the most optimal DW build currently in 4e, but still. It makes me long for the days when Rangers were chiefly seen as bow hunters, a la Aragorn, and not brooding dual-scimitar-wielding anti-heroes.

Toting around dual scimitars does not a Drizzt make.

[Gao]

Ugh, just...ugh. You're right unfortunately, it is the most optimal DW build currently in 4e, but still. It makes me long for the days when Rangers were chiefly seen as bow hunters, a la Aragorn, and not brooding dual-scimitar-wielding anti-heroes.

But yeah, there's always multiclass Ranger feats, which retain a bit of the sense of the ever-popular dipping two levels into Ranger in 3.x to get your DW on. Seems to work okay for main-class Fighters looking for something other than a greatsword.

Two-Bladed Sword. Counts as a light blade and a Heavy Blade at the same time. Tempest Fighter, Rain of Blows. Two-Weapon Fighting, Two-Weapon defense for +1 shield AC/Ref. Get combat Advantage, action point, DESTROY. Enjoy your +3 death on a stick.

Even better if you get a power jewel or two, for converting OTHER powers into Rain of Blows. Mother of God. Add that Two-Bladed swords are freaking defensive and Off-hand as well.. mother of god. Doesn't work as well for pure damage at Paragon Tier, not as well as lol Storm warden Dual Scimitar, or Hexhammer, but yeah. At lower levels, hell yes Tempest Fighter.

[skywalker]

What's a power jewel? How did I miss this?!

Also:

Ugh, just...ugh. You're right unfortunately, it is the most optimal DW build currently in 4e, but still. It makes me long for the days when Rangers were chiefly seen as bow hunters, a la Aragorn, and not brooding dual-scimitar-wielding anti-heroes.

I've always wanted to make a dual-scimitar ranger who was incredibly dense(because I mean, really, what's INT good for?), bright and cheerful, and obsessed with killing things(or, in his world, getting the high score, defeating the miniboss, etc.) Sadly, I never get to play 4e anymore

[BardicDuelist]

What's a power jewel? How did I miss this?!

Also:

I've always wanted to make a dual-scimitar ranger who was incredibly dense(because I mean, really, what's INT good for?), bright and cheerful, and obsessed with killing things(or, in his world, getting the high score, defeating the miniboss, etc.) Sadly, I never get to play 4e anymore

Did that. He was a bugbear. His favorite past time was cooking the things he killed and offering them to party members. His goal was to kill more monsters than everyone else, because he felt that it was all a game and if he did he "won." When disabling traps or that, he would often say "I'm smarter than the average bugbear" despite his 8 Int.

[Asbestos]

Ugh, just...ugh. You're right unfortunately, it is the most optimal DW build currently in 4e, but still. It makes me long for the days when Rangers were chiefly seen as bow hunters, a la Aragorn, and not brooding dual-scimitar-wielding anti-heroes.

You mean a la Legolas? Aragorn seemed primarily a single sword user than a bow user.

As for this whole damn Double Sword business. I think I'll houserule that only one blade of it counts as a light blade and only one blade counts as being 'off-hand'. I'm pretty sure that's the RAI at least.

[Dacia Brabant]

You mean a la Legolas? Aragorn seemed primarily a single sword user than a bow user.

On the Pelennor Field, sure, but I thought in the novel Aragorn as the Ranger of the North didn't really use a sword much? Maybe I'm misremembering but I thought he was more of a bowman in his Strider guise--which really seemed to be the model for the medieval fantasy Ranger up until Our Favorite Drow came along. I don't remember them dual-wielding until he came along.

(And yeah, I shouldn't have went off about him at the sight of a twin-scimitar-wielding Ranger suggestion. Sorry for the unnecessary tangent.)

[Gao]

You mean a la Legolas? Aragorn seemed primarily a single sword user than a bow user.

As for this whole damn Double Sword business. I think I'll houserule that only one blade of it counts as a light blade and only one blade counts as being 'off-hand'. I'm pretty sure that's the RAI at least.

If it was it would have said something. It seems pretty obvious that it's RAI, saying that there is no mention of the back blade being the light one in the description. Besides, does it matter? Rain of Blows isn't an attack that requires two weapons; it's perfectly acceptable to use the back half to slash the crap out of something, if you really were going to make a point of it.

[KKL]

You mean a la Legolas? Aragorn seemed primarily a single sword user than a bow user.

As for this whole damn Double Sword business. I think I'll houserule that only one blade of it counts as a light blade and only one blade counts as being 'off-hand'. I'm pretty sure that's the RAI at least.

Honestly I just banned Double Swords since they're...so annoyingly broken.

[RPGuru1331]

Ugh, just...ugh. You're right unfortunately, it is the most optimal DW build currently in 4e, but still. It makes me long for the days when Rangers were chiefly seen as bow hunters, a la Aragorn, and not brooding dual-scimitar-wielding anti-heroes.

Uh, I'm pretty sure Rangers are good Ranged strikers, it's just that the thread is sorta about Dual Wielding.

[Gao]

Uh, I'm pretty sure Rangers are good Ranged strikers, it's just that the thread is sorta about Dual Wielding.

Quoted for truth. Some of the more brutal builds I've seen are Beastmaster Builds and Swiftshot Crossbow builds, as opposed to lol Scimtar Stormwarden.

[RPGuru1331]

Beastmaster is out now? Does that mean I actually need to go buy a Martial Power copy instead of ignoring it, or did I miss its actual source?

[Gao]

Beastmaster is out now? Does that mean I actually need to go buy a Martial Power copy instead of ignoring it, or did I miss its actual source?

Where the hell have you been, Martial Power came out on the 18th. We'll see you when you get back from your mad rush to your LGS. And yes, it's in there. My god the brutality.

[RPGuru1331]

Where the hell have you been, Martial Power came out on the 18th. We'll see you when you get back from your mad rush to your LGS. And yes, it's in there. My god the brutality.

Oh, I knew Martial Power was out. I'm just inclined to laziness and cheapness, so I wasn't going to buy it without specifically having a reason. Now I do. I'll probably pick it up after classes/work tonight, since that puts me in that part of town.