thanks for destroying dual-wielding WotC

56 posts / 0 new
Last post
no more dual battleaxe barbarians makes olaf angry
 

"Trying to run gritty gothic horror with 4e is like trying to cut down a tree with a hammer, likewise trying to run heroic fantasy with 1e is like trying to hammer a nail with a chainsaw."

 
 

 This is what i get when i hit the Quote button:  http://community.wizards.com/%23

 

  

Why not? A second attack improves the odds of applying rage damage and deadly strike, since the first attack might miss. Also no feats are necessary to bring dual-wielding up to par with sword-n-board and great weapons
His point is you can no longer have 2 non-light weapons in hand. Without a feat you have to be holding 2 light weapons to use both, with the feat one still has to be light. So you can't dual wield Full sized one-hand weapons and attack with both. Sad, I know, but oh well. They could prolly make the feat work with two non-light weapons by dropping the damage die of your second attack by a level, including any extra weapon dice based on feats or class features.
I also think it's stupid that you need a feat to use a non-light weapon, and that you can't ever use two non-light weapons. They should just give you penalties to hit if you're not wielding light weapons. For example, they could give you a -2 penalty if the weapon you're wielding isn't light. That's far better than just making it flat out impossible.
I don't think requiring you to use a 1d8 and a 1d6 weapon vs. using two 1d8 weapons counts as "destroying dual-wielding".  But to each their own I guess.
A lot of people are very attached to the concept of a character wielding a matched pair of weapons that aren't light weapons.  They're upset because the rules no longer allow it under any circumstances.


There are a few different ways they could approach fixing it, all of which have their drawbacks.  I think the most elegant is to have the player designate a main hand and off hand, declare which weapon is in which hand and hit the off hand with a small penalty to hit.  Trading chance to hit for damage is almost never a good trade, so a price is paid for the choice, but I think there is an advantage to having interchangeable weapons that justifies it (especially if your group adheres to the standard assumption that the majority of magic weapons are longswords).
"When Friday comes, we'll all call rats fish." D&D Outsider
How is Battleaxe/Hand-ax not a good trade off?
Sure, you have TWO less points of Potential Maximum Damage, but the Hand-ax can be THROWN!
Having trouble with that Witchdoctor on the other ledge?
BAM! AX TO THE FACE!!!

That's even if you bother with the Two-Weapon Fighting feats, personally I'd just grab two Lights and go to town.
2d6 beats a 1d12 any day, even if you don't gain an Ability Modifier to damage on the second one.
Which reminds me, do Attack Bonuses still count towards Second Weapons?
Battleaxe/hand axe might be a good trade off.  Now do longsword/shortsword.


Whoops.


"When Friday comes, we'll all call rats fish." D&D Outsider
Battleaxe/hand axe might be a good trade off.  Now do longsword/shortsword.


Whoops.




Actually Scimitars are now Light Weapons, so there is your Slashing Offhand Sword thingy...
You can't throw it, but you're the one stuck up on having two Swords instead of Bastard Sword and a Hand-ax...
I am much more likely to use a set of paired weapons when TWF than I am to use two unpaired weapons.  It's an aesthetic thing. 

It should be allowed and encouraged, not explicitly discouraged as it is now.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
TWF just needs to be cosmetic, and follow pretty much exactly the same rules as THF.

Assymetry between weapon damage can be handled by "pick the higher one, and use THF rules". Multiple riders can be handled just like a two-handed weapon which somehow has multiple riders, or simply "pick one".
no more dual battleaxe barbarians makes olaf angry
 


Fail

The only way to properly make Olaf is by using an Axe you can throw and the only Axe you can throw is Handaxe!

Olaf has been dual wielding Handaxes from the beginning!

Yea, I actually like the game much more as is. I think they finally got dual wielding (almost*) right. 

*I say that because, for now, my judgement is holistic. I need to run the math to see what I really think. 
I am much more likely to use a set of paired weapons when TWF than I am to use two unpaired weapons.  It's an aesthetic thing. 

It should be allowed and encouraged, not explicitly discouraged as it is now.




Twin hand axes. Twin short swords. Twin scimitars. What is being discouraged?

What is being discouraged?

Twin chainsaws.

What is being discouraged?

Twin chainsaws.



Twin Greatswords Tongue Out
There are a few different ways they could approach fixing it, all of which have their drawbacks.  I think the most elegant is to have the player designate a main hand and off hand, declare which weapon is in which hand and hit the off hand with a small penalty to hit.  Trading chance to hit for damage is almost never a good trade, so a price is paid for the choice, but I think there is an advantage to having interchangeable weapons that justifies it (especially if your group adheres to the standard assumption that the majority of magic weapons are longswords).



With a light weapon in your off-hand, it's -2 to hit. (I don't have my PDFs open, so not 100% sure if this has changed.) What if it were -2 to hit from both weapons if they were of equal size -- two greataxes or two longswords (as opposed to two handaxes, which would only get the -2 in the offhand). 

Spreads the penalty around a bit. Also, to me at least, seems to account for how off-balanced dual-wielding like that can make you. 
Battleaxe/hand axe might be a good trade off.  Now do longsword/shortsword.


Whoops.




Actually Scimitars are now Light Weapons, so there is your Slashing Offhand Sword thingy...
You can't throw it, but you're the one stuck up on having two Swords instead of Bastard Sword and a Hand-ax...



I'm not stuck up on anything, but if I was, I'd want the rules to support it as a choice.  I don't want the game mechanics to present my players with one set of options that is strictly better than the others, thereby asking them to choose between their character concept and optimal performance.
"When Friday comes, we'll all call rats fish." D&D Outsider
There are a few different ways they could approach fixing it, all of which have their drawbacks.  I think the most elegant is to have the player designate a main hand and off hand, declare which weapon is in which hand and hit the off hand with a small penalty to hit.  Trading chance to hit for damage is almost never a good trade, so a price is paid for the choice, but I think there is an advantage to having interchangeable weapons that justifies it (especially if your group adheres to the standard assumption that the majority of magic weapons are longswords).



With a light weapon in your off-hand, it's -2 to hit. (I don't have my PDFs open, so not 100% sure if this has changed.) What if it were -2 to hit from both weapons if they were of equal size -- two greataxes or two longswords (as opposed to two handaxes, which would only get the -2 in the offhand). 

Spreads the penalty around a bit. Also, to me at least, seems to account for how off-balanced dual-wielding like that can make you. 



They did away with the penalty.


I don't think the penalty should necessarily be "spread around."  The design goal should be to make each choice compelling, but roughly equal at most levels of play.  -2 to hit with both weapons is strictly worse than every other option, given the new damage mechanics and the limits on the second attack's damage.  It would be better in every case to go sword and board or greatsword, or even to eschew weapons and slap people.    
"When Friday comes, we'll all call rats fish." D&D Outsider

I think the barbarian using two hand axes instead of two great swords is a step in the right direction.  While both can have the look of furry incarnate, the second option has tended to be abused when stacked with spells (enlarge, etc.).

IIRC, all heavy one-handed weapons cap out at 1d8 damage, whereas all light one-handed weapons cap out at 1d6.  If you want to dual wield paired axes (or whatever), just rule that the main hand does 1d8 damage, and the off-hand does 1d6. Mathematically, you aren't more or less powerful than someone with a light off-hand, but you retain the flavor of a paired weapon.

If you want to handwave it, just say that the off-hand deals less damage because it is the non-dominant hand.  I'm pretty sure the intention of the feat's wording isn't to dictate what weapons someone can or can't wield (per se) but rather to limit the ability to gain a disporportionate damage increase by picking up the feat. 
IIRC, all heavy one-handed weapons cap out at 1d8 damage, whereas all light one-handed weapons cap out at 1d6.  If you want to dual wield paired axes (or whatever), just rule that the main hand does 1d8 damage, and the off-hand does 1d6. Mathematically, you aren't more or less powerful than someone with a light off-hand, but you retain the flavor of a paired weapon.

If you want to handwave it, just say that the off-hand deals less damage because it is the non-dominant hand.  I'm pretty sure the intention of the feat's wording isn't to dictate what weapons someone can or can't wield (per se) but rather to limit the ability to gain a disporportionate damage increase by picking up the feat. 



This ^

Basically I'd say just reflavor the fact that your off-hand weapon is a Battleaxe but because it's not your dominant hand, it deals slightly less damage (about a die worth, I reckon). 

Also, I'm a big fan of just throwing in feats from other editions as well to "fix" things and this sounds like a good time to allow Oversized Two-Weapon Fighting feat into the game. Basically, don't let the rules dictate fun. If your DM is cool with you using two main-hand weapons and no one seems to object, then just have at it.    
no more dual battleaxe barbarians makes olaf angry
 


Fail

The only way to properly make Olaf is by using an Axe you can throw and the only Axe you can throw is Handaxe!

Olaf has been dual wielding Handaxes from the beginning!


it's the image of a barbarian wielding two battleaxes that matters.

"Trying to run gritty gothic horror with 4e is like trying to cut down a tree with a hammer, likewise trying to run heroic fantasy with 1e is like trying to hammer a nail with a chainsaw."

 
 

 This is what i get when i hit the Quote button:  http://community.wizards.com/%23

 

  

That's even if you bother with the Two-Weapon Fighting feats, personally I'd just grab two Lights and go to town.
2d6 beats a 1d12 any day, even if you don't gain an Ability Modifier to damage on the second one.
Which reminds me, do Attack Bonuses still count towards Second Weapons?



This is true...right up until Deadly Strike starts getting introduced.  Then, the two-handed weapons start becoming superior in terms of potential damage (2d12, 3d12, 4d12, etc.), whereas dual-wielding is better in terms of more consistent damage (because of the two chances to hit).

At least, that is what the math that I've seen has shown, though it could be out-of-date knowledge =).

So, to each their own. =)   
meaning 2handed is best for high damage 
 2wf best for steady damage, multitarget, and rider accuracy
 sword and board for defense
 
 Thank you for FIXING twf wotc!
That's even if you bother with the Two-Weapon Fighting feats, personally I'd just grab two Lights and go to town.
2d6 beats a 1d12 any day, even if you don't gain an Ability Modifier to damage on the second one.
Which reminds me, do Attack Bonuses still count towards Second Weapons?



This is true...right up until Deadly Strike starts getting introduced.  Then, the two-handed weapons start becoming superior in terms of potential damage (2d12, 3d12, 4d12, etc.), whereas dual-wielding is better in terms of more consistent damage (because of the two chances to hit).

At least, that is what the math that I've seen has shown, though it could be out-of-date knowledge =).

So, to each their own. =)   



Its true, until you add in Two Weapon Strike allowing you to add your modifier to your offhand
Then again that's a level 9 feat and the pool warm and shield feats are quite awesome too. Could really use a cool 2hander-non-pole arm feat chain
IIRC, all heavy one-handed weapons cap out at 1d8 damage, whereas all light one-handed weapons cap out at 1d6.  If you want to dual wield paired axes (or whatever), just rule that the main hand does 1d8 damage, and the off-hand does 1d6. Mathematically, you aren't more or less powerful than someone with a light off-hand, but you retain the flavor of a paired weapon.

If you want to handwave it, just say that the off-hand deals less damage because it is the non-dominant hand.  I'm pretty sure the intention of the feat's wording isn't to dictate what weapons someone can or can't wield (per se) but rather to limit the ability to gain a disporportionate damage increase by picking up the feat. 



This ^

Basically I'd say just reflavor the fact that your off-hand weapon is a Battleaxe but because it's not your dominant hand, it deals slightly less damage (about a die worth, I reckon). 

Also, I'm a big fan of just throwing in feats from other editions as well to "fix" things and this sounds like a good time to allow Oversized Two-Weapon Fighting feat into the game. Basically, don't let the rules dictate fun. If your DM is cool with you using two main-hand weapons and no one seems to object, then just have at it.    

Yes, this.
The argument for having two battleaxes (or whatever) seems to be: "That is my character concept."  So just flavor it that way.  If the concept is all that is important, it shouldn't matter that your off-hand battleaxe does a bit less damage than your main-hand battleaxe.  And if that DOES matter, then you aren't really interested in the concept, you just want more damage.

As far as numbers go, Dual Wielding increases the user's mainhand damage by +1 average. Allowing both hands to be d8s would only increase it to +2 average. Add deadly strike (which only applies to one attack), and that would jump up to +3 at level 5, +4 at L10, +5 at L15, and +6 at L20.

Compared to how Dual Wielding works right now, which would end up with only +5 at level 20. I don't see a huge balance problem with allowing Dual Wielding to use two non-light weapons instead of only one.
If two-handed weapons could add 1.5 times your Strength modifier like before, it would probably make up for the difference with TWF, but then both might be superior to sword-and-board.
Can someone show me in real history that wielding two non-light weapons is possible? if it is possible, can someone show me how is it not very hard to wield such weapons?

for me, the new twf rule is actually logical. since you focus more on two attacks, having a light weapon on both hands is logical so that you can swing them correctly. and the logic that no ability modifier damage is because u cant really deal  heavy damage if you're quickly swinging two weapons

if you learn the twf feat, then one weapon can be a normal weapon and can add modifier damage. which is actually a logical thing 
Can someone show me in real history that wielding two non-light weapons is possible? if it is possible, can someone show me how is it not very hard to wield such weapons?

for me, the new twf rule is actually logical. since you focus more on two attacks, having a light weapon on both hands is logical so that you can swing them correctly. and the logic that no ability modifier damage is because u cant really deal  heavy damage if you're quickly swinging two weapons

if you learn the twf feat, then one weapon can be a normal weapon and can add modifier damage. which is actually a logical thing 


en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hook_sword + www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Shuang_Gou_(3.5e_Equipment) . Twin hook swords were 1 handed (not light) in 3.5, could be (and almost always WERE) used in two weapon fighting. In fact, they are so good for two weapon fighting that you get an additional +1 AC to two weapon defense.
Can someone show me in real history that wielding two non-light weapons is possible? if it is possible, can someone show me how is it not very hard to wield such weapons?

for me, the new twf rule is actually logical. since you focus more on two attacks, having a light weapon on both hands is logical so that you can swing them correctly. and the logic that no ability modifier damage is because u cant really deal  heavy damage if you're quickly swinging two weapons

if you learn the twf feat, then one weapon can be a normal weapon and can add modifier damage. which is actually a logical thing 




The only example in western history is Florentine—twin arming swords—and as I understand it there are a very limited number of sources that talk about such a style. For the most part it was not done.


And, allowing people two dual wield twin d8 weapons would be a HUGE boost in power, contrary to an above poster’s statement. The game works much better as is.  
Can someone show me in real history that wielding two non-light weapons is possible? if it is possible, can someone show me how is it not very hard to wield such weapons?

for me, the new twf rule is actually logical. since you focus more on two attacks, having a light weapon on both hands is logical so that you can swing them correctly. and the logic that no ability modifier damage is because u cant really deal  heavy damage if you're quickly swinging two weapons

if you learn the twf feat, then one weapon can be a normal weapon and can add modifier damage. which is actually a logical thing 


en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hook_sword + www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Shuang_Gou_(3.5e_Equipment) . Twin hook swords were 1 handed (not light) in 3.5, could be (and almost always WERE) used in two weapon fighting. In fact, they are so good for two weapon fighting that you get an additional +1 AC to two weapon defense.



Hook swords require special training to use properly (in real life). If they brought back exotic weapons, and had some one-handed ones that could be dual wielded, that could do it.

Or perhaps the dual wielding feat should require a Strength prerequisite if it will allow the use of two one-handed weapons.
Can someone show me in real history that wielding two non-light weapons is possible? if it is possible, can someone show me how is it not very hard to wield such weapons?

for me, the new twf rule is actually logical. since you focus more on two attacks, having a light weapon on both hands is logical so that you can swing them correctly. and the logic that no ability modifier damage is because u cant really deal  heavy damage if you're quickly swinging two weapons

if you learn the twf feat, then one weapon can be a normal weapon and can add modifier damage. which is actually a logical thing 


not relivent, PCs are not normal, they should be able to transend normal limitations. even if only .01% of any warrior can use two heavy weapons effectivly, that does not matter because my PC could be that .01%.

what should determine if you can do is are how well it works in the game and if its balanced.
Insulting someones grammar on a forum is like losing to someone in a drag race and saying they were cheating by having racing stripes. Not only do the two things not relate to each other (the logic behind the person's position, and their grammar) but you sound like an idiot for saying it (and you should, because its really stupid )
If the issue is that two larger weapons throw off the damage curve but the player wants the cool factor, just refluff the off-hand weapon so it does less damage and hey presto, problem solved.  If a player wants two heavy weapons because they want to destroy the damage curve then thier argument collapses under its own weight and deserves no further merit.
Can someone show me in real history that wielding two non-light weapons is possible? if it is possible, can someone show me how is it not very hard to wield such weapons?

for me, the new twf rule is actually logical. since you focus more on two attacks, having a light weapon on both hands is logical so that you can swing them correctly. and the logic that no ability modifier damage is because u cant really deal  heavy damage if you're quickly swinging two weapons

if you learn the twf feat, then one weapon can be a normal weapon and can add modifier damage. which is actually a logical thing 


en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hook_sword + www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Shuang_Gou_(3.5e_Equipment) . Twin hook swords were 1 handed (not light) in 3.5, could be (and almost always WERE) used in two weapon fighting. In fact, they are so good for two weapon fighting that you get an additional +1 AC to two weapon defense.



Hook swords require special training to use properly (in real life). If they brought back exotic weapons, and had some one-handed ones that could be dual wielded, that could do it.

Or perhaps the dual wielding feat should require a Strength prerequisite if it will allow the use of two one-handed weapons.

Well, how hard a weapon is to use really isn't a factor when the question was "Can someone show me in real history that wielding two non-light weapons is possible? if it is possible, can someone show me how is it not very hard to wield such weapons?". It was a real example, not a comment on balance in d&d.

That said, I think that a feat to use one handed weapons in TWF would be better than exotic weapons. (either single weapons or all depending on taste and balance) 

Well, how hard a weapon is to use really isn't a factor when the question was "Can someone show me in real history that wielding two non-light weapons is possible? if it is possible, can someone show me how is it not very hard to wield such weapons?". It was a real example, not a comment on balance in d&d.

That said, I think that a feat to use one handed weapons in TWF would be better than exotic weapons. (either single weapons or all depending on taste and balance) 




I think a real world comparison is futile.  No weapons are 'easy' to use without training - hitting something with weapons is easy I suppose but even club use or boxing require training to connect with the individual rather than a shield or to avoid leaving yourself open to counter-attack.  Whether usage requires a feat or some other penalty is always going to be about game balance.
You could probably make everyone happy if the 9th level feat let you use non-light weapons in both hands, and if your off-hand weapon is light, you get to add your ability mod to damage. Taking deadly strike and crits into account, those aren't so far apart in average damage.
I think a real world comparison is futile.  No weapons are 'easy' to use without training - hitting something with weapons is easy I suppose but even club use or boxing require training to connect with the individual rather than a shield or to avoid leaving yourself open to counter-attack.  Whether usage requires a feat or some other penalty is always going to be about game balance.

For some, it needs to be possible in real life for immersion. This is a different concern for them as they wouldn't want a balanced option if it meant that it didn't make sense to them.

Its true, until you add in Two Weapon Strike allowing you to add your modifier to your offhand



True.  But that also requires significant feat investment (2 out of 4), whereas wielding a two-handed weapon does not (if you already have proficiency).  Plus, it would only add a maximum of +5 to the total damage, and you would have to hit both times on the same target (as per the wording of Two-Weapon Strike).  And, you could only apply the Deadly Strike to one of the weapons since it is Once Per Turn.

If we assume optimal conditions (i.e. hitting with all weapons involved in the same action against the same creature + the max deadly strike):
Average two-handed damage at level 20 (with no feats dedicated to it) = 5d12 + 5 =  32.5 + 5 = 37.5
Average dual-wielding damage at level 20 (with the two feats: Dual Wielding and Two-Weapon Strike) = 5d8 + 1d6 + 10 = 22.5 + 3.5 + 10 = 36

So, to even make two-weapon fighting comparable to two-handed fighting, you have to not only hit both times against the same target, but you have to invest two feats into it just to get it to be close to as good (assuming you allow feats in your game, which some don't).  Now, what TWF does give you is a second opportunity to apply your Deadly Strike if you missed with the first attack, but in that case, you would not get to add your ability modifier, and the dice would be lower than if you had hit with your main hand.