Two-Weapon Fighting Unclear

28 posts / 0 new
Last post
Two weapon fighting in the packet seems to be unclear. Do you only roll damage for the light weapon or for both weapons using the light weapons damage?

Two-­Weapon Fighting: When you wield two melee weapons at the same time, you can attack with both of them using a single action, provided at least one of them is a light weapon. You take a −2 penalty to both attack rolls, and you use only the light weapon’s damage dice to determine its damage; you add no bonuses to it. If both weapons are light, only one of them is limited in this way (you choose).



It looks like you just roll the light weapons damage to me.
"Unite the [fan] base? Hardly. As of right now, I doubt their ability to unite a slightly unruly teabag with a cup of water."--anjelika
1-4E play style
The 4E play style is a high action cinematic style of play where characters worry less about being killed in one hit and more about strategy and what their next move is and the one after it. The players talk back and forth about planning a battle and who can do what to influence the outcome. 4E play is filled with cinematic over the top action. An Eladrin teleports out of the grip of the Ogre. The Fighter slams the dragons foot with his hammer causing it to rear up and stagger back in pain. The Cleric creates a holy zone where their allies weapons are guided to their targets and whenever an enemy dies the Clerics allies are healed. 4E is about knowing when to lauch your nova attack, whether its a huge arcane spell that causes enemies to whirl around in a chaotic storm, or if its a trained adrenaline surge that causes you to attack many many times with two weapons on a single target, or a surge of adrenaline that keeps you going though you should already be dead. Its about tactics and the inability to carry around a bag of potions or a few wands and never have to worry about healing. Its about the guy that can barely role play having the same chance to convince the king to aid the group as the guy that takes improv acting classes and regularly stars as an extra on movies.
Stormwind Fallacy
The Stormwind Fallacy, aka the Roleplayer vs Rollplayer Fallacy Just because one optimizes his characters mechanically does not mean that they cannot also roleplay, and vice versa. Corollary: Doing one in a game does not preclude, nor infringe upon, the ability to do the other in the same game. Generalization 1: One is not automatically a worse role player if he optimizes, and vice versa. Generalization 2: A non-optimized character is not automatically role played better than an optimized one, and vice versa. ...[aside]... Proof: These two elements rely on different aspects of a player's game play. Optimization factors in to how well one understands the rules and handles synergies to produce a very effective end result. Role playing deals with how well a player can act in character and behave as if he was someone else. A person can act while understanding the rules, and can build something powerful while still handling an effective character. There is nothing in the game -- mechanical or otherwise -- restricting one if you participate in the other. Claiming that an optimizer cannot role play (or is participating in a play style that isn't supportive of role playing) because he is an optimizer, or vice versa, is committing the Stormwind Fallacy.
The spells we should getLook here to Check out my adventures and ideas. I've started a blog, about video games, table top role playing games, programming, and many other things its called Kel and Lok Games. My 4E Fantasy Grounds game is currently full.
Two weapon fighting in the packet seems to be unclear. Do you only roll damage for the light weapon or for both weapons using the light weapons damage?

Two-­Weapon Fighting: When you wield two melee weapons at the same time, you can attack with both of them using a single action, provided at least one of them is a light weapon. You take a −2 penalty to both attack rolls, and you use only the light weapon’s damage dice to determine its damage; you add no bonuses to it. If both weapons are light, only one of them is limited in this way (you choose).



It looks like you just roll the light weapons damage to me.



To me this says you roll for each weapon with its own damage and the light weapon gets no damage modifer from magic or strength, but ya it could be interpreted your way.
It sounds like you roll damage for each weapn but get no bnuses to one of the light weapons you carry.

Now what happens with the Dual Weilding feat?

Orzel, Halfelven son of Zel, Mystic Ranger, Bane to Dragons, Death to Undeath, Killer of Abyssals, King of the Wilds. Constitution Based Class for Next!

@ Silverque: thats the way I read it too. If you wield a longsword and dagger, the attacks would deal 1d8 + Str plus 1d4. Any benefits from ability modifier or a class feature doesnt apply.
From my understand, Two-weapon Fighting basically let you attack with both weapons if at least one has the Light property, you take a -2 to both attack rolls and you use the light weapon’s damage dice to determine damage for both attacks and cannot add any bonuses, unless your two weapon have the Light property, in which case you may add bonuses to one of them. (and not get -2 attack)


EDITED 

Yan
Montréal, Canada
@Plaguescarred on twitter

From my understand, Two-weapon Fighting basically let you attack with both weapons if at least one has the Light property, you take a -2 to both attack rolls and you use the light weapon’s damage dice to determine damage for both attacks and cannot add any bonuses, unless your two weapon have the Light property, in which case you may add bonuses to one of them.



That's probably what they intended, but that's not how it reads...Smile
"Unite the [fan] base? Hardly. As of right now, I doubt their ability to unite a slightly unruly teabag with a cup of water."--anjelika
1-4E play style
The 4E play style is a high action cinematic style of play where characters worry less about being killed in one hit and more about strategy and what their next move is and the one after it. The players talk back and forth about planning a battle and who can do what to influence the outcome. 4E play is filled with cinematic over the top action. An Eladrin teleports out of the grip of the Ogre. The Fighter slams the dragons foot with his hammer causing it to rear up and stagger back in pain. The Cleric creates a holy zone where their allies weapons are guided to their targets and whenever an enemy dies the Clerics allies are healed. 4E is about knowing when to lauch your nova attack, whether its a huge arcane spell that causes enemies to whirl around in a chaotic storm, or if its a trained adrenaline surge that causes you to attack many many times with two weapons on a single target, or a surge of adrenaline that keeps you going though you should already be dead. Its about tactics and the inability to carry around a bag of potions or a few wands and never have to worry about healing. Its about the guy that can barely role play having the same chance to convince the king to aid the group as the guy that takes improv acting classes and regularly stars as an extra on movies.
Stormwind Fallacy
The Stormwind Fallacy, aka the Roleplayer vs Rollplayer Fallacy Just because one optimizes his characters mechanically does not mean that they cannot also roleplay, and vice versa. Corollary: Doing one in a game does not preclude, nor infringe upon, the ability to do the other in the same game. Generalization 1: One is not automatically a worse role player if he optimizes, and vice versa. Generalization 2: A non-optimized character is not automatically role played better than an optimized one, and vice versa. ...[aside]... Proof: These two elements rely on different aspects of a player's game play. Optimization factors in to how well one understands the rules and handles synergies to produce a very effective end result. Role playing deals with how well a player can act in character and behave as if he was someone else. A person can act while understanding the rules, and can build something powerful while still handling an effective character. There is nothing in the game -- mechanical or otherwise -- restricting one if you participate in the other. Claiming that an optimizer cannot role play (or is participating in a play style that isn't supportive of role playing) because he is an optimizer, or vice versa, is committing the Stormwind Fallacy.
The spells we should getLook here to Check out my adventures and ideas. I've started a blog, about video games, table top role playing games, programming, and many other things its called Kel and Lok Games. My 4E Fantasy Grounds game is currently full.
A breakdown of why I think as I do (though it is hardly proof):

 When you wield two melee weapons at the same time, you can attack with both of them using a single action, provided at least one of them is a light weapon.



So it is obviously clear to me that there are two sperate attacks that take place one for each weapon. 

You take a −2 penalty to both attack rolls, and you use only the light weapon’s damage dice to determine its damage; you add no bonuses to it



Watching the pural is the trick here.  the -2 goes to both which says to me it applies to both attacks. When we are talking about the light weapon though we switch to the singular it and we do not specify the modifier both. So it make sense to me that  what follows only applies to the light weapon.

If both weapons are light, only one of them is limited in this way (you choose). 



This doesn't really help one way or the other. If you are thinking as I do it makes sense because it is giving you a bit of grace in the situation where you are using a light weapon (presumably in the other situation the light weapon is in the off hand).  Of course if you are thinking the opposite I imagine it sound very much like it is rewarding you for using two light weapons.

Mostly, it just doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me that if I am weilding a longsword and a dagger and attacking with both for some reason the longsword does dagger damage when weilding it with a shield it does longsword damage.

Again it is vague and I can see how other interpretations happen. Clarification would be most welcome. 
If that's the way its supposed fo work, its borked for a second time in a row. Sorry but the multiple penalties for TWF dont offset the minor bonuses compared to other options. Again it seems they missed the mark IMO.
From my understanding, since all damage use the Light's damage die while Two-Weapon Fighting, the limitations that doesn't apply if both weapons are Light is the one that you add no bonus and take -2 to attack roll.

Basically you get:

Option 1
1. Normal Weapon Attack: -2 attack roll, Light weapon damage die, no bonus
2. Light Weapon Attack: -2 attack roll, Light weapon damage die, no bonus


Option 2
1. Light Weapon Attack: Light weapon damage die
2. Light Weapon Attack: -2 attack roll, Light weapon damage die, no bonus 

Yan
Montréal, Canada
@Plaguescarred on twitter

I think they just used an and when they should have used a period. Check out the difference here:

You take a −2 penalty to both attack rolls, and you use only the light weapon’s damage dice to determine its damage; you add no bonuses to it.
 


vs.

You take a −2 penalty to both attack rolls. You use only the light weapon’s damage dice to determine its damage; you add no bonuses to it.



 
The sentence seems badly constructed to me, but I read the it's as referring to only the light weapon. That way it saying you make two attacks, one with each weapon, both attacks at -2 to hit. The light weapon gets no bonuses to damage from anything, including magic weapons and expertise dice. It could be read as both attacks use only the light weapons damage with no bonus but that would be terribly harsh and the last sentence contradicts that.
Yeah, I had to read that sentence several times over trying to figure it out. I agree with those that interpret it to mean that the light weapon gets no bonuses to damage, but the other weapon rolls damage as normal with any bonuses.

Two weapon fighting with longsword and dagger, both hit:
Longsword damage 1d8 + STR Mod+ any other damage bonuses such as Martial Damage Dice.
Dagger damage 1d4 with no bonuses whatsoever. 

Two weapon fighting with longsword and dagger, only longsword hits:
Longsword damage 1d8 + STR Mod+ any other damage bonuses such as Martial Damage Dice.

Two weapon fighting with longsword and dagger, only dagger hits:
Dagger damage 1d4 with no bonuses whatsoever.

Two weapon fighting with two daggers, both hit:
Dagger damage 1d4 + STR Mod (or Dex)+ any other damage bonuses such as Martial Damage Dice.
Dagger damage 1d4 with no bonuses whatsoever.

Two weapon fighting with two daggers, only one hits:
Dagger damage 1d4 + STR Mod (or Dex)+ any other damage bonuses such as Martial Damage Dice.


There is a very nice reason to use two light weapons under this system. 
While they didn't word it clearly, for example, it doesn't specify that you have to wield at least one light weapon (presumably in your off-hand), I'm psyched that they finally fixed TWF.
There are a great many problems that can be circumvented by players and DMs having a mature discussion about what the game is going to be like before they ever sit down together to play.

 

The answer really does lie in more options, not in confining and segregating certain options.

 

You really shouldn't speak for others.  You can't hear what someone else is saying when you try to put your words in their mouth.

 

Fencing & Swashbuckling as Armor.

D20 Modern Toon PC Race.

Mecha Pilot's Skill Challenge Emporium.

 

Save the breasts.

While they didn't word it clearly, for example, it doesn't specify that you have to wield at least one light weapon (presumably in your off-hand), I'm psyched that they finally fixed TWF.



Doesn't this:

"When you wield two melee weapons at the same time, you can attack with both of them using a single action, provided at least one of them is a light weapon."

...allude to the fact that to swing with both weapons in a single action requires at least one light weapon? And when you do, the light weapon die is the one used for damage on both attacks and you do not add any additional modifiers (expertise die, martial damage bonus, Strength or Dexterity modifier). Which, to me, is saying "Use two light weapons or be extreamly insufficent".

Basically, the only way to fight with two-weapons is if you go down the TWF feat tree, like in 3E, and that doesn't even mitigate the penalities to attacks your going to suffer. I'm not a math wiz but how significant is a consistant -2 penalty to ALL weapon attacks in a game with Bounded Accuracy?
While they didn't word it clearly, for example, it doesn't specify that you have to wield at least one light weapon (presumably in your off-hand), I'm psyched that they finally fixed TWF.



Doesn't this:

"When you wield two melee weapons at the same time, you can attack with both of them using a single action, provided at least one of them is a light weapon."

...allude to the fact that to swing with both weapons in a single action requires at least one light weapon?


Ty for pointing that out.  I was skimming on the first read.

And when you do, the light weapon die is the one used for damage on both attacks and you do not add any additional modifiers (expertise die, martial damage bonus, Strength or Dexterity modifier). Which, to me, is saying "Use two light weapons or be extreamly insufficent".


Having reread it again, I believe you are wrong.  I believe you do full damage with the non-light weapon (given that you are wielding one light and one not) or full damage with one of two light weapons.


There are a great many problems that can be circumvented by players and DMs having a mature discussion about what the game is going to be like before they ever sit down together to play.

 

The answer really does lie in more options, not in confining and segregating certain options.

 

You really shouldn't speak for others.  You can't hear what someone else is saying when you try to put your words in their mouth.

 

Fencing & Swashbuckling as Armor.

D20 Modern Toon PC Race.

Mecha Pilot's Skill Challenge Emporium.

 

Save the breasts.

While they didn't word it clearly, for example, it doesn't specify that you have to wield at least one light weapon (presumably in your off-hand), I'm psyched that they finally fixed TWF.



Doesn't this:

"When you wield two melee weapons at the same time, you can attack with both of them using a single action, provided at least one of them is a light weapon."

...allude to the fact that to swing with both weapons in a single action requires at least one light weapon?


Ty for pointing that out.  I was skimming on the first read.



No problem, I read it 3 times before I comprehended what the heck was going on Smile 

And when you do, the light weapon die is the one used for damage on both attacks and you do not add any additional modifiers (expertise die, martial damage bonus, Strength or Dexterity modifier). Which, to me, is saying "Use two light weapons or be extreamly insufficent".


Having reread it again, I believe you are wrong.  I believe you do full damage with the non-light weapon (given that you are wielding one light and one not) or full damage with one of two light weapons.



I really hope I'm wrong, but that's what this discussion is about. Some, like Silverque believe that the restriction only applies to the light weapon and I'm inclined to agree. Yet others feel that the distinction of light weapons in this sentence:

"You take a -2 penalty to both attack rolls, and you use only the light weapon’s damage dice to determine its damage; you add no bonuses to it. If both weapons are light, only one of them is limited in this way (you choose)."

......means that if you attack with a 1-handed weapon and a light weapon, both attacks use the light weapons die AND you do not add anything to the damage roll. So a longsword and shortsword attack from a guy with Strength 18 would still only ever deal 2d6 damage (plus perhaps ED). 

This begs the question, does this substantiate the idea that both attacks use light-damage die (regardless of what's held in the primary hand) and the clause is enacted to provide a benefit for fighting with two light weapons OR does it substantiate the belief that you'll retain your bonus to damage (via magic bonuses, Martial Damage, Ability mods) on one of the attacks, regardless if both weapons are light?  

The way the design team has been treading on TWF, I'm going to assume the former because it's a more stricter clause and reduces TWF effectiveness. For some reason the dev-team thinks that no only is a -2 penalty to both attacks not sufficent in keeping balance, but minimizing damage potential AND restricting you to specific weapons is required as well. The only semi-decent way out of this quagmire is to go strictly down the Dual-Wielder Feat tree, or as many of us like to call it:

Concept Taxes.

I really hope I'm wrong, but that's what this discussion is about. Some, like Silverque believe that the restriction only applies to the light weapon and I'm inclined to agree. Yet others feel that the distinction of light weapons in this sentence:

"You take a -2 penalty to both attack rolls, and you use only the light weapon’s damage dice to determine its damage; you add no bonuses to it. If both weapons are light, only one of them is limited in this way (you choose)."

......means that if you attack with a 1-handed weapon and a light weapon, both attacks use the light weapons die AND you do not add anything to the damage roll. So a longsword and shortsword attack from a guy with Strength 18 would still only ever deal 2d6 damage (plus perhaps ED). 

This begs the question, does this substantiate the idea that both attacks use light-damage die (regardless of what's held in the primary hand) and the clause is enacted to provide a benefit for fighting with two light weapons OR does it substantiate the belief that you'll retain your bonus to damage (via magic bonuses, Martial Damage, Ability mods) on one of the attacks, regardless if both weapons are light?  

The way the design team has been treading on TWF, I'm going to assume the former because it's a more stricter clause and reduces TWF effectiveness. For some reason the dev-team thinks that no only is a -2 penalty to both attacks not sufficent in keeping balance, but minimizing damage potential AND restricting you to specific weapons is required as well. The only semi-decent way out of this quagmire is to go strictly down the Dual-Wielder Feat tree, or as many of us like to call it:

Concept Taxes.



First off, thank you for adopting my "concept taxes" term.  Secondly, let me highlight the parts that make me believe they are talking about only one of two attacks being limited.

The first part is this bolded one:
"You take a -2 penalty to both attack rolls, and you use only the light weapon’s damage dice to determine its damage; you add no bonuses to it. If both weapons are light, only one of them is limited in this way (you choose)."

Did you miss it?  It's the "its."  You use only the light weapon's damage dice to determine "its" damage, not "their" damage.

The second part is this bolded one:
"You take a -2 penalty to both attack rolls, and you use only the light weapon’s damage dice to determine its damage; you add no bonuses to it. If both weapons are light, only one of them is limited in this way (you choose)."

This results in two light weapons being more effective than one light and one not.  I don't believe that's what they were striving for.
There are a great many problems that can be circumvented by players and DMs having a mature discussion about what the game is going to be like before they ever sit down together to play.

 

The answer really does lie in more options, not in confining and segregating certain options.

 

You really shouldn't speak for others.  You can't hear what someone else is saying when you try to put your words in their mouth.

 

Fencing & Swashbuckling as Armor.

D20 Modern Toon PC Race.

Mecha Pilot's Skill Challenge Emporium.

 

Save the breasts.

I read the "if both weapons are light.. " clause as indicating that if you're attacking with two daggers, only one gets nerfed. The other gets full damage with bonuses, as would a sword, axe, or other non-light weapon.

I think a -2 to attack rolls is a very minor penalty compared to the benefit of an extra (light) weapon dice worth of damage. Should cut down on the frequency of Drizzt clones.
And thanks to bounded accuracy, the -2 penalty never becomes completely meaningless I'm happy about that one. It helps keep it in line, letting it still be a good path to take.
My two copper.
Should cut down on the frequency of Drizzt clones.


I don't think so.  People that clone Drizzt are people cloning Drizzt.  TWF is part of that cloning, but I don't think people who are psyched to clone Drizzt care so much about the mechanics as they do about the mimicry of the character.
There are a great many problems that can be circumvented by players and DMs having a mature discussion about what the game is going to be like before they ever sit down together to play.

 

The answer really does lie in more options, not in confining and segregating certain options.

 

You really shouldn't speak for others.  You can't hear what someone else is saying when you try to put your words in their mouth.

 

Fencing & Swashbuckling as Armor.

D20 Modern Toon PC Race.

Mecha Pilot's Skill Challenge Emporium.

 

Save the breasts.

Should cut down on the frequency of Drizzt clones.


I don't think so.  People that clone Drizzt are people cloning Drizzt.  TWF is part of that cloning, but I don't think people who are psyched to clone Drizzt care so much about the mechanics as they do about the mimicry of the character.


My Driz'zt clone is a halfling...
And thanks to bounded accuracy, the -2 penalty never becomes completely meaningless I'm happy about that one. It helps keep it in line, letting it still be a good path to take.



Yeah, hitting a level 20 monster with a level 20 Two-Weapon fighting character means going from 70% hit chance to 60% hit chance and +2 damage. I guess its a decent trade off...Smile
"Unite the [fan] base? Hardly. As of right now, I doubt their ability to unite a slightly unruly teabag with a cup of water."--anjelika
1-4E play style
The 4E play style is a high action cinematic style of play where characters worry less about being killed in one hit and more about strategy and what their next move is and the one after it. The players talk back and forth about planning a battle and who can do what to influence the outcome. 4E play is filled with cinematic over the top action. An Eladrin teleports out of the grip of the Ogre. The Fighter slams the dragons foot with his hammer causing it to rear up and stagger back in pain. The Cleric creates a holy zone where their allies weapons are guided to their targets and whenever an enemy dies the Clerics allies are healed. 4E is about knowing when to lauch your nova attack, whether its a huge arcane spell that causes enemies to whirl around in a chaotic storm, or if its a trained adrenaline surge that causes you to attack many many times with two weapons on a single target, or a surge of adrenaline that keeps you going though you should already be dead. Its about tactics and the inability to carry around a bag of potions or a few wands and never have to worry about healing. Its about the guy that can barely role play having the same chance to convince the king to aid the group as the guy that takes improv acting classes and regularly stars as an extra on movies.
Stormwind Fallacy
The Stormwind Fallacy, aka the Roleplayer vs Rollplayer Fallacy Just because one optimizes his characters mechanically does not mean that they cannot also roleplay, and vice versa. Corollary: Doing one in a game does not preclude, nor infringe upon, the ability to do the other in the same game. Generalization 1: One is not automatically a worse role player if he optimizes, and vice versa. Generalization 2: A non-optimized character is not automatically role played better than an optimized one, and vice versa. ...[aside]... Proof: These two elements rely on different aspects of a player's game play. Optimization factors in to how well one understands the rules and handles synergies to produce a very effective end result. Role playing deals with how well a player can act in character and behave as if he was someone else. A person can act while understanding the rules, and can build something powerful while still handling an effective character. There is nothing in the game -- mechanical or otherwise -- restricting one if you participate in the other. Claiming that an optimizer cannot role play (or is participating in a play style that isn't supportive of role playing) because he is an optimizer, or vice versa, is committing the Stormwind Fallacy.
The spells we should getLook here to Check out my adventures and ideas. I've started a blog, about video games, table top role playing games, programming, and many other things its called Kel and Lok Games. My 4E Fantasy Grounds game is currently full.
@ Mechapilot: I hope your right. That's the way I read it too but I've heard some compelling reasons that suggest the other way.

RE: Drizzt Clones; in actuality D&D: Next it's easier to make one than in 4E. Scimitars are light weapons and you can add your Dex-modifier to damage rolls. Just reflavor high elf into Drow, take a wizard control like dancing likes as a "racial" SLA and voliá.
From my understand, Two-weapon Fighting basically let you attack with both weapons if at least one has the Light property, you take a -2 to both attack rolls and you use the light weapon’s damage dice to determine damage for both attacks and cannot add any bonuses, unless your two weapon have the Light property, in which case you may add bonuses to one of them. (and not get -2 attack)


EDITED 



That's how I first read it too, but I still think you get the -2 to each attack.

Does anyone know if they will be correcting this?   How are we going to playtest something that isn't clear?

 


From my understand, Two-weapon Fighting basically let you attack with both weapons if at least one has the Light property, you take a -2 to both attack rolls and you use the light weapon’s damage dice to determine damage for both attacks and cannot add any bonuses, unless your two weapon have the Light property, in which case you may add bonuses to one of them. (and not get -2 attack)


EDITED 



That's how I first read it too, but I still think you get the -2 to each attack.

Does anyone know if they will be correcting this?   How are we going to playtest something that isn't clear?


It seems clear to me, though it could be made clearer.  The way I read it, you get to attack, with a -2 penalty, with both weapons.  One weapon does normal damage with all appropriate bonuses, the light weapon only uses the weapon damage roll for damage, no bonuses.  That's why they used "its" instead of "their."
There are a great many problems that can be circumvented by players and DMs having a mature discussion about what the game is going to be like before they ever sit down together to play.

 

The answer really does lie in more options, not in confining and segregating certain options.

 

You really shouldn't speak for others.  You can't hear what someone else is saying when you try to put your words in their mouth.

 

Fencing & Swashbuckling as Armor.

D20 Modern Toon PC Race.

Mecha Pilot's Skill Challenge Emporium.

 

Save the breasts.

MechaPilot, this is how I read it too. It seems clear to me. It could be stated more clearly though.
That's how I first read it too, but I still think you get the -2 to each attack.

Yes, the -2 applies to both attacks. Has to, really, or else there'd be no reason *not* to use a second weapon (other than loss of a shield or double-handed weapon, I guess). It makes simulationist sense too: fighting with a weapon in each hand makes your dominant hand clumsy too, not just the off-hand weapon.
Well. I agree that it basiaclly gives you an extra weapon worth of damage with two attacks at -2. Your non-light weapons, or one of your light weapons, works as a 100% normal attack with only a -2 penalty. The extra attack is -2 and only adds weapons damage on hit...not really all that great considering 1d8 is as good as you can get.

However, one interesting thing I noticed in the "Two-Weapon" feats, is that my Rogue that likes to use a Short Sword and a Hand Crossbow can use Two-Weapon Defense and Two-Weapon strike by the letter of the rules. The only downside on taking Two-Weapon Strike is that I have to get Dual Wielding which is utterly useless to me...of course it would be worth it to always attack with advantage ^_^