Dual Wielding is being fixed, right?

67 posts / 0 new
Last post
I seriously hope that dual wielding becomes a viable fighting style for warrior-types in 4e. Such a cool archetype deserves to be usefull to characters other than those who deal massive amounts of precision damage. Seriously, WotC, if I can make it work for my 3e homebrew you can make it work for 4e!
I seriously hope that dual wielding becomes a viable fighting style for warrior-types in 4e. Such a cool archetype deserves to be usefull to characters other than those who deal massive amounts of precision damage. Seriously, WotC, if I can make it work for my 3e homebrew you can make it work for 4e!

I don't think dual wielding is broken. To dual wield competently, it requires a single feat. But that reflects the difficulty of the technique. WtoC's move to drop ambidexterity between 3.0 to 3.5 was enough, I think.

Anything beyond the basics requires more feats. But that can be said for any fighting technique that is represented by feats.

Weapon expertise requires weapon focus, weapon specialization, and the weapon mastery feats from the PHB2.

Sword and board has feats spanning several books. Including Capt. America's shield throw. (And let us not forget that a shield is a viable weapon for dual wielding.)

I also believe that in its current form, dual-wielding is quite viable for a warrior type. Fighters have the feats to throw at it. Rangers get half the feats for free. It's not viable for paladins or the other hybrids, but that is because they are concerned with spellcasting and they inherently have less feats.

Yes, anyone with sneak attack gets more out of dual wielding than a basic warrior type. But then, that makes a certain amount of sense. A dual wielder with a pair of flaming weapons gets more out of it than the normal dual wielding fighter. It's a bonus that sneak attackers get, not a penalty to the normal fighter.

Really, your argument is much like saying that a rogue gets more out of a sword than fighter does, cause he has sneak attack dice. :P

There is one part of your argument I do agree with. Dual wielding should be more viable to warrior types that are short on feats. But if 4e has as half as many feats as Saga, I think it will be a nonexistent issue. On the other hand, if they are the same as far as dual wielding goes, it becomes nonviable for other reasons.

Other than being cool or "rogues do it better", do you have any other reasons that dual wielding isn't viable? Could you give us an example from your homebrew game?

As always, your mileage may vary.
Sorry, Cales, but TWF is infamously subpar for anyone without a crapload of bonus damage per attack. It also requires three feats just to keep up.

Just make a fighter with a greatsword and one with two shortswords. Compare them. The greatsword fighter gets 1.5x STR bonus to damage, and he can Power Attack at a 2:1 damage:AB penalty ratio. And he doesn't have a -2 AB penalty, which means he can Power Attack for -2, +4 damage, and have the same AB as the TWFer.

What's more, TWF requires a heavy Dex investment, due to the feat prereqs--that either penalizes the TWFer's strength (so his 1x STR on the main hand and 0.5x on the off hand are with a significantly lower STR than the greatsword fighter's), or--more likely--locks him into a Dex-based archetype with Weapon Finesse (another feat) and no real damage from strength. The end result is that on a full attack, a TWFing fighter does less damage than a greatsword fighter--fairly significantly.
And it's not like you always get a full attack. In fact, at higher levels, it can get very hard.
The Fighter winds up spending three feats just to keep being not as good.

Sword and Board is killed and gutted by the existence of Animated shields (giving up your greatsword for a longsword is NOT worth +2 AC in the short term... in the long term, both the sword-and-board and greatsword-and-animated-shield guy will have a +5 enhancement shield) and the Improved Buckler Defense feat too.


To sum up, TWF isn't viable because it requires a heavy feat investment in return for less damage output (and other problems on top of that: have to buy two weapons, more reliant on a full attack, can't Power Attack functionally, etc). IIRC the average bonus damage per hit needs to be something like 20 or 30 to make TWFing remotely worthwhile.
I hope that both dual wielding and sword + board fare better in 4E than they did in 3E. It took way too any resources to be even decent at TWF in 3E and you still were out done by a THF character who used half as many feats.
Not to mention that in 3.5, you could TWF with a 2-handed weapon and armour spikes...though that was horrendously inefficient...:D
Comparing the Longsword to the Greatsword is kinda not a realistic comparison.....after all the Greatsword is bigger and has a higher damage anyway. So comparatively the person wielding a single Greatsword will always outdamage the person wielding a single Longsword.

Using two longswords the longsword person will get more possible hits and will have a higher average damage than he had with just a single longsword.

Using two weapons is not easy in real life either, that is why it wasn't done very often. Most standard armies preferred spear (or sword) and shield. The weapon + shield I think is the thing most underpowered in DnD.
Maybe another part of 4e design that inspired a change to the rules for SW: Saga is the idea that there will be no iterative attacks based on BAB and thus one of the only ways to get more hits per round is to use two weapons?

I just removed the dancing/floating shields from my games a while back. It had got to the point where everyone had one. There was never any sacrifice beyond the money and it meant that the one guy who had a nice concept around a shield-based defensive sort ended up being totally overshadowed by the guy with the same AC who was using a 2h weapon instead.
There is one part of your argument I do agree with. Dual wielding should be more viable to warrior types that are short on feats. But if 4e has as half as many feats as Saga, I think it will be a nonexistent issue. On the other hand, if they are the same as far as dual wielding goes, it becomes nonviable for other reasons.

My complaint is that dual wielding isn't just sub-optimal for warrior types, it's strictly inferior to THF. The dual wielding warrior is a classic and popular archetype, yet the absolute only reason to play it in d&d is its "cool factor". I don't mind dual wielding requiring a lot of feats because it is a difficult style in RL and because it makes the fighter a little more popular. I don't mind rogues getting use out of dual wielding, even if I have to stretch my imagination to imagine it, but DUAL WIELDING NEEDS TO HAVE SOME PLACE IN THE WARRIOR WORLD. Sorry, it's early and I haven't had my coffee yet.

Other than being cool or "rogues do it better", do you have any other reasons that dual wielding isn't viable? Could you give us an example from your homebrew game?

Here is my rant from another board that made me decide to post here:

TWF is strictly inferior to THF. Sword and shielders have the advantage of extra AC (I too do not allow animated things), even if it is of arguable value but unfortunately the one and only good reason to use TWF is its "cool factor". Just take a look at the most important mechanics to any melee character:

Attack Opportunities: Without special feats or classes, a TWFer can only use their fighting style if they manage to pull off a full attack action. Other melee styles only require a charge or standard action.

AB: TWF is the only style that penalizes your chances to actually hit anyone, even with the best weapon combos. In addition, the high Dex requirements for the TWF feats almost demands Weapon Finesse to maximize your AB.

Power Attack: TWFers only get +1 damage per AB sacrificed, as counter intuitive as that sounds. Sword and shielders get that, plus their extra AC. THFers get double bang for their buck.

Strength to Damage: TWFers effectively apply x1.5 Str bonus to damage (assuming they can pull off a full attack), which is in theory superior to sword and shielders and equivalent to THFers. But thanks to the high Dex demands of the TWF feats, this shred of hope for TWFers is reduced to a crying ghost.

Damage Reduction: TWF is the only style which DR applies to doubly.

And finally, consider the cost of buying and upgrading two weapons, about the most expensive items in the game. THFers need only invest in one weapon, while even sword and shielders invest 25% less cash into their tools of choice.

Oh, and just for extra kicks note that the 4th TWF feat is missing from core. Apparently gaining a fourth off-hand attack at a -15 penalty is so good that it needs to be epic.

All that said, there is a reason for TWFing to suck the ballerinas out of all other fighting styles: if it didn't, every rogue ever played would be a TWFer capable of mincing barbarians into tiny pieces with one full attack. I myself have come up with a set of alternate mechanics for players who want to play a TWF warrior and not suck at the same time. It boosts a lot of the TWF mechanics, while restricting precision damage to one weapon at a time.
In 3.5, you pretty much have to be a rogue (or at least have several rogue levels) to make TWF effective. I've never had a problem with that... the rogue is a fine archetype for the dual-wielding style warrior

Anyway, I bet that in 4e, you'll have to be a striker. And I bet the analog of sneak attack will be less powerful but easier to pull off.
My complaint is that dual wielding isn't just sub-optimal for warrior types, it's strictly inferior to THF.

As opposed to 3.0, where TWF and Sword & Board were strictly superior to THF. I'd like to see some balance, and I think (with respect to TWF vs. THF) that 3.5 provides a better balance than 3.0 did -- especially given the advantage that TWF gives to Rogues, Swashbucklers, and the like.

Attack Opportunities: Without special feats or classes, a TWFer can only use their fighting style if they manage to pull off a full attack action. Other melee styles only require a charge or standard action.

The alternative is to allow extra attacks on a standard action. This would make TWF strictly superior to THF & S&B, especially in Spring Attack, Mounted Combat, and Charger builds. (Not that I terribly like THF Spring Attackers being strictly superior, but it's appropriate for the other two...)

AB: TWF is the only style that penalizes your chances to actually hit anyone, even with the best weapon combos. In addition, the high Dex requirements for the TWF feats almost demands Weapon Finesse to maximize your AB.

This is appropriate. Real-world two-weapon fighting styles use the second weapon primarily as a defensive or opportunistic weapon. Actual attacks with the second weapon should be rare and awkward. There's a reason that most societies developed with S&B or THF as their primary weapon styles up until the light weapons used in dueling made TWF more common.

Power Attack: TWFers only get +1 damage per AB sacrificed, as counter intuitive as that sounds. Sword and shielders get that, plus their extra AC. THFers get double bang for their buck.

It's not counter-intuitive at all.

Wielding two weapons is awkward. You generally fight with a primary weapon in front and a lighter weapon held in reserve in the rear. (You never bring both weapons to the forefront unless you want them to get in each other's way and leave an opening for your torso.) The latter weapon is, again, used for parries and for the ultra rare opportunistic attack when you've got the other person's weapon in a bind or beaten aside.

This is why D&D requires you to use a light weapon in your off-hand (like basically every successful TWF style in the real world). The somewhat lame two-weapon defense feat is actually a lot more realistic than TWF. If you want to use two weapons that would benefit well from Power Attack, if danged well should require a special feat to do without excessive penalty.

And THF *should* get more bang for their buck when Power Attacking. You can put a LOT more force behind a weapon (using your whole upper torso and backing it up with good footwork) when wielding a weapon two handed. TWF (if you use the weapons somewhat equally) relies more on arm strength alone.

(This comment applies to the snipped "Strength for Damage" argument that came after the above too.)

Damage Reduction: TWF is the only style which DR applies to doubly.

Define "doubly." Flurry of blows gets the same penalties. DR and energy resistance are both intended to make bigger blows matter more than more frequent blows. There's no way to fix this except to make the extra attacks all as strong as a THF's attacks, and that's just completely unbalancing the system in favor of TWF.

And finally, consider the cost of buying and upgrading two weapons, about the most expensive items in the game. THFers need only invest in one weapon, while even sword and shielders invest 25% less cash into their tools of choice.

Now that's a legit complaint. Weapon costs compared to armor costs are blatantly unfair. Why should it cost less to enchant a small metal blade for destructive purposes than a huge suit of armor for protective purposes?

Oh, and just for extra kicks note that the 4th TWF feat is missing from core. Apparently gaining a fourth off-hand attack at a -15 penalty is so good that it needs to be epic.

Rogues make TWF shine. Yes, adding an extra opportunity for massive sneak attack damage is really, really good. Don't get me started on playing a thri-kreen with Multiweapon fighting. Oh, the abuse!

I myself have come up with a set of alternate mechanics for players who want to play a TWF warrior and not suck at the same time. It boosts a lot of the TWF mechanics, while restricting precision damage to one weapon at a time.

I'd like to see them. I'd love to know if you avoided making it strictly superior to THF & S&B. (S&B needs more love anyway given how good it was in the real world.)
4E will not have DR, as I recall, so that should help. Also, they are focusing on weaon tyopes/styles, so I expect dual wield will be fine in 4E.

Shields need a boost, both in protection and 'coolness'.

The choice between going sword and board and 2h/dual wield should be
signifigant, with both modes being worth it under different situations.
4E will not have DR, as I recall, so that should help.

Actually, this is not true. DR is in, and early versions of the 4e Warforged apparently had it to broken levels. (Which was commented on by several developers in different Castle Smoulderhorn playtest reports.)

Here's the most notable quote (source):
As it turns out, Toby’s warforged paladin is essentially indestructible under the current rules. I suppose a warforged ought to be tough, but the really odd thing is that his damage resistance (any DR, really) ignores psychic damage and poison damage. I’m not sure things ought to work that way; it seems to me that some sorts of damage ought to bypass DR by their very nature.

Seems like they streamlined the exemptions for DR (or alternatively, given the two damage types listed above, made it soak ability damage) and made it a bit too powerful in the minds of some of the developers.

The choice between going sword and board and 2h/dual wield should be signifigant, with both modes being worth it under different situations.

I agree. I think that PHB2 shows that the developers are aware that S&B didn't get enough love in the last edition.
Well, one step they are taking is making the choice of weapon significant. A they arleady indicated, some weapons will do greater damage and knockback, et.c, while some weapons are simply fast. So, by making the abilities you can access determined by the weapon you wield, it balances a lot of the styles by making weapon choice more complicated than "this one deals more damage".
This is appropriate. Real-world two-weapon fighting styles use the second weapon primarily as a defensive or opportunistic weapon. Actual attacks with the second weapon should be rare and awkward. There's a reason that most societies developed with S&B or THF as their primary weapon styles up until the light weapons used in dueling made TWF more common.

...

Wielding two weapons is awkward. You generally fight with a primary weapon in front and a lighter weapon held in reserve in the rear. (You never bring both weapons to the forefront unless you want them to get in each other's way and leave an opening for your torso.) The latter weapon is, again, used for parries and for the ultra rare opportunistic attack when you've got the other person's weapon in a bind or beaten aside.

This is why D&D requires you to use a light weapon in your off-hand (like basically every successful TWF style in the real world). The somewhat lame two-weapon defense feat is actually a lot more realistic than TWF. If you want to use two weapons that would benefit well from Power Attack, if danged well should require a special feat to do without excessive penalty.

...

Now that's a legit complaint. Weapon costs compared to armor costs are blatantly unfair. Why should it cost less to enchant a small metal blade for destructive purposes than a huge suit of armor for protective purposes?

Not to pick on this poster, but I do have to complain a bit about this. I think when people discuss TWFing, they look at it from a western combat school of thought. But they forget things like unarmed combat (even boxing/kick boxing trains the use of both "hands"), or eastern combat techniques (i'm fairly certain that kung fu trains the use of dual weapons, or double weapons like the staff, and lets not forget Escrima which uses dual sticks, knives, or fists). Many styles use two weapons.

As far as D&D is concerned, TWFing should be costly, requiring high dex and training (read: feats) to perfect, but it should grant equal rewards as any other style using the same number of feats. Sword/Board is a defensive style, not high damage but higher AC. THFing is a damage style. Because defense/offense is all there really is to combat, TWFing is left out without an easy place to come onto the scene. But I think it can be done.

As for magic enhancement costs, it costs less to enhance armor/shields than weapons because an Armor enhancement only grants +1 AC, while a Weapon enhancement grants +1 to hit and +1 to damage; the AC and To Hit balance each other out, but the damage needs to be taken into consideration. If armor enhancements boosted AC AND DR, I'd be perfectly fine with them having the same cost.

So, there are fighting styles which use the off-hand for defense and opportunity, but there are other styles which focus on a mix of defense and offense, attacking with both weapons to force your opponent on the defensive (it's harder to defend against two dangerous objects coming your way than one). All combat styles train to defend against attacks (as far as I know).

Lastly, this is a fantasy game. No one choice should be better than others, as long as the choices are reasonable (someone wanting to fight with a toothpick and be as skilled as a greatsword fighter isn't being reasonable, but a TWFer is).
Poe's Law is alive and well. Emerikol is right*
Not to pick on this poster, but I do have to complain a bit about this. I think when people discuss TWFing, they look at it from a western combat school of thought. But they forget things like unarmed combat (even boxing/kick boxing trains the use of both "hands"), or eastern combat techniques (i'm fairly certain that kung fu trains the use of dual weapons, or double weapons like the staff, and lets not forget Escrima which uses dual sticks, knives, or fists). Many styles use two weapons.

Study fencing and kendo some time. I've done enough of both to gain an appreciation for the difficulty in two-weapon fighting. Historically, a fighter would be generally up against:
  • One-handed fighters presenting a profile (with or without a second weapon). Not presenting a profile against them and using the other weapon offensively opens you up to a good thrust.
  • Two-handed fighters with a major strength and leverage advantage (often a reach advantage too). While these people generally don't present a profile, parrying is exceptionally hard and dodging rarely leaves your other hand in a good position. Still, there are some historical fighters who did really well with two weapons against people rigidly trained to only fight against one. (Miyamoto Musashi would be one.)
  • Shield fighters hunkered down behind a shield and attacking around it. Two weapons gives you little advantage in getting around a shield without opening yourself up.
  • Reach fighters who will skewer you long before you can get both weapons in range.

Almost all real-world fighting styles (and weapons and armor) evolved specifically to counter the tactics of nearby enemies. There are very few schools of two-weapon fighting in the world that faced regularly against fighters not using the same sort of style, and all that I'm aware of favored defensive and opportunistic use of the second weapon instead of trying to use it equally. Feel free to provide counter-examples.

Also, eskrima uses very short weapons in its two-stick fighting style. (Its sword style uses a dagger when going paired.) Note that fighting with short weapons against an opponent with short weapons is very different from fighting someone with a good longsword or reach weapon. (Still I wish I could've had some eskrima classes back in college. It's a neat martial art.)

Because defense/offense is all there really is to combat, TWFing is left out without an easy place to come onto the scene. But I think it can be done.

I think that it already has been done. Strength-based fighting favors THF. Agility and precision fighting (e.g. Rogues, Swashbucklers, etc.) favor TWF.

If armor enhancements boosted AC AND DR, I'd be perfectly fine with them having the same cost.

I can buy that. It does make TWF significantly more expensive, though.
Why spend 4 or even more feats on two weapon fighting if you can get a higher damage output with two handed fighting. It's just ridicules to spend all of those feats only for the higher chance of scoreing a critical hit.
Why spend 4 or even more feats on two weapon fighting if you can get a higher damage output with two handed fighting. It's just ridicules to spend all of those feats only for the higher chance of scoreing a critical hit.

Largely because they're only uneven if you're putting a TWF Fighter against a THF Fighter instead of a TWF Rogue. Then the comparison is not quite so straightforward.
Someone mentioned sword and board not being a high damage style, I couldn't disagree more. One of the main uses of a shield is knocking your opponent off balance and opening up their guard to make them easier to strike and kill. A shield is as offensive a tool as it is a defensive tool.
Only, of course, if the rogue is flanking the opponent. Having to feint to get the sneak attack damage removes the entire point of TWF after all.
I know this is a given, but it yet reduces the efficacy of TWF.
Here's a video with some nice katana and wakizashi drills. The footage I'm talking about is about 1:45 into the clip. The style is Tenshin Shoden Katori Shinto ryu.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zPw0k6qYSF4

Rest of the videos:
Part 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v9HR7TTOReE
Part 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CEeW-CFyJVc
Part 3: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XX9Zn6k1poE
Part 4: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IreQsNHSoK8

It's an excellent documentary, definitely worth a watch if you're into this kind of stuff.
Really, as long as all major fighting styles are viable in some way to a warrior-type character in 4e, I'll be overjoyed.

Why spend 4 or even more feats on two weapon fighting if you can get a higher damage output with two handed fighting. It's just ridicules to spend all of those feats only for the higher chance of scoreing a critical hit.

Not to mention that the critical hit argument for TWF isn't even valid. A TWF who lands a crit with each weapon still won't deal as much damage as a THF who lands one crit. Energy blasts help a little, but a TWF still has to pay double for those enchantments than a THF.
In my game I have two players with fighters with TWF and imp TWF and they are quite effective. I know at least one of them plans on going greater TWF. As far as damage output goes they hit even with their last attacks at about 2/3 the time when fighting monsters equal to their challange rating. TWF isn't weak or broken. It's only when dealing with certain playstyles or comparing to certain builds that people say it is weak. When just looking at equal challange rating monsters it isn't weak at all.
Interesting.
Just as an aside the animated shield isn't broken, even though it is stupid conceptually. Animated is +2 equivalent, so the uber-high-level two handed weapon fighter is 2 points of AC behind the uber-high-level sword & shield fighter. Otherwise the gap would bloat up from 2 AC points at 1st level to 7 points at 20th (shield +5 vs. no shield).
Two weapon fighting blows in that you pay a feat for the priviledge of taking a hit penalty, and then if you hit with both attacks you do the same damage as the guy with the two handed sword. You then lose out when making attacks of opportunity too (less damage), and the extra attacks would be awesome for disarm/trip/etc. except there aren't usually enough feats left over for those. And the THF gets a +4 on most of those manuevers, such as disarm, for their weapon size.
The ranger gets punished over and over since as well as having TWF as a built in feature (no shield), he gets poor hit dice and has to wear light armour too! And the ranger should have a Dex of <15 too, or he would have been better off as a fighter getting TWF as a feat at level 1 (not 2).

4E should alleviate the "full attack problem" (I believe it aims to let fighters make multiple attacks and still move). It does aim to cut down on multiple attack rolls though, if the TWF warrior makes a single attack roll to see if he hits with both weapons (a la Rapid Shot SAGA/or the make-two-attacks-as-a-standard-action feat in Complete Adventurer) it'll definitely lose most of its shine for me though.

Sandulax

I think the problem is a lack of intuitive roles for TWF vs THF. 1H/Shield vs TWF or THF is easy: one is defensive, the other is offensive. But TWF and THF don't have an immediate intuitive feel to them (fencing masters and medieval studies majors don't apply ;) ). Most people agree with the feeling that TWF should hit more often while THF hits harder, but in D&D and most similar games, average damage per round (or DPS in real-time) is what really matters, so the speed of it is pretty unimportant.

So, the trick would be to find something simple and intuitive to differentiate the two styles that can be applied to the game. Maybe 2-handed weapons give you a bonus to all abilities that are heavily dependent on sheer strength, like knocking someone prone or sundering their shield, while THF could give a bonus to abilities that are more dependent on dexterity, like disarming or parrying.
One thing that should differentiate them if the rumours are true is the connected stat to the weapon.

There was some talk that the TWF weapons will be connected to Dex for bonus damage which should help as a TWF only has one stat to maximize instead of the 2 stats it previously needed.

The Bo9S had one of their abilities where you made two rolls as one 'combined' attack. This was the effect of the TWF having a 'shadowy' double that made it harder for a target to determine which was the real attacking sword. A good roll did damage with a small bonus and two good rolls did damage with a greater bonus. I expect something similar for the two weapon fighters will be part of the 4e.
Animated is +2 equivalent, so the uber-high-level two handed weapon fighter is 2 points of AC behind the uber-high-level sword & shield fighter. Otherwise the gap would bloat up from 2 AC points at 1st level to 7 points at 20th (shield +5 vs. no shield).

Thankfully, we have magic vestment, so it is really just a difference of 8000gp.
Thanks to the folks that responded to me. That was *exactly* what I was trying to provoke when I made the statements I did. Maybe I should have mentioned I was playing Devil's Advocate? I apologize if anyone took offense.

All that said, some thoughts:

If two handed fighting is so insane compared to every other fighting style, maybe that's the problem and not two weapon fighting. In some ways, I think Saga did alright with 2 weapon fighting. Problem is, in Saga, multiple attacks are rarely worth it.

----------------

Power attack: O how I hate thee. Seriously though, it's arguably the best basic feat in the game. Certainly the most effective for the cost and prerequisites. It's flexible enough to adapt to need. It scales in usefulness across a character's entire career. It makes two handed fighting far superior to any other fighting style. Oh, and did I mention it becomes evil with a weapon that has x3 or x4 crit modifier?

Power attack's closest neighbor is Combat Expertise. Combat expertise scales only in the short run. It doesn't multiply in power with a comparable fighting style (unlike power attack). The only real plus is flexibility, a trait it shares with power attack, but PA does it better.

Another similar feat: Weapon Specialization. It's only +2 damage, but it's consistent and doesn't have any penalties associated with it. On the other hand, WS has a fairly obnoxious requirement (4th level fighter). Power attack needs a 13+ strength and a base attack of +1. Oooh, difficult prereqs.

But I digress.

-----------------------------------

I do agree that two handed is superior to two weapon. I'm just not sure if it's two weapon that needs a boost or if two handed needs a kick in the nuts. Edit: Oh yeah, I'm sure animated shields do.

As always, your mileage may vary.
Thankfully, we have magic vestment, so it is really just a difference of 8000gp.

Well there's a cheap rules loophole. The two weapon fighter may as well have an animated shield and a Defending weapon in their off hand with greater magic weapon cast on it then, since that's a nameless bonus.

Sandulax

I do agree that two handed is superior to two weapon. I'm just not sure if it's two weapon that needs a boost or if two handed needs a kick in the nuts. Edit: Oh yeah, I'm sure animated shields do.

Relative to 3E, Two-Weapon needs a boost - Power Attacking still doesn't bring most martial characters up to par with spellcasters. In 4E, who's to say?
Relative to 3E, Two-Weapon needs a boost - Power Attacking still doesn't bring most martial characters up to par with spellcasters. In 4E, who's to say?

In real life,

Two weapons = superior to two-handed

Weapon and Shield larger than a buckler = superior to two-weapons

In D&D currently everything is inversed I'm hoping they fix that
This is a Concern/Criticism post.
In real life,

Two weapons = superior to two-handed

Weapon and Shield larger than a buckler = superior to two-weapons

In D&D currently everything is inversed I'm hoping they fix that

I'm not a weapons expert, so I can't say. So just to pre-empt anyone who comes in with the exact opposite opinion... real-life is something that should be irrelevant to the matter if it gets in the way of game balance and concerns a matter which most people are not greatly knowledgeable on.
In real life,

Two weapons = superior to two-handed

I'm sorry, but this is frankly not borne out by history, especially when you consider polearms. Two weapon fighting pretty much disappears with the use of armor on the battlefield and only reappears in societies when much of combat becomes unarmored dueling. (See Renaissance Italy, Roman Gladiators, and Shogunate Japan.) The only other societies that I'm aware of that practiced two-weapon fighting on a large scale never really developed heavy armor.

Also, ditto on what AstralFireIX said about balance, except that I'll qualify that real-world interests are why I'd rather see two-weapon fighting retooled as more of a defensive art than an offensive one.
Two weapons = superior to two-handed

Totally debatable.
I'm sorry, but this is frankly not borne out by history, especially when you consider polearms. Two weapon fighting pretty much disappears with the use of armor on the battlefield and only reappears in societies when much of combat becomes unarmored dueling. (See Renaissance Italy, Roman Gladiators, and Shogunate Japan.) The only other societies that I'm aware of that practiced two-weapon fighting on a large scale never really developed heavy armor.

Also, ditto on what AstralFireIX said about balance, except that I'll qualify that real-world interests are why I'd rather see two-weapon fighting retooled as more of a defensive art than an offensive one.

The fact that it died out when armor comes says to me that (regardless of the defensive nature - which I can totally buy) one handed swings weren't strong enough to punch through heavy Euro-style armor. So if we have any gun experts hanging around, is TWShooting really popular among people who are good? And I'm not talking Matrix style gun-fu. Even *I* know that's impractical.
I do agree that two handed is superior to two weapon. I'm just not sure if it's two weapon that needs a boost or if two handed needs a kick in the nuts. Edit: Oh yeah, I'm sure animated shields do.

I've never bothered to consider nerfing THF because I really try to not nerf core stuff. IME, that's about the quickest way to make players unhappy. But otherwise, I'd entertain the idea that THF is too good. By all means, two-handed PA should grant x1.5 damage if only to be consistent with the Str bonus.
I can't help but notice that nobodies debated the weapon and shield being superior to both others comment of mine. Is it because you agree with me, or because you are all caught up on the two-hander vs two-handed?

Personally, unless it's a spear or pole arm I don't particularly care for either two-weapon or two-handed as I know they're both sub par in RL. Though if playing an ogre or something I'll use two-handers. If optimizing a rogue I might use two-weapon.

I despise floating shields by the way.
If sword+shield is the "defensive" style and THF is the "offensive" style, maybe TWF needs to be given the "versatile" role. Maybe fold the two-weapon fighting and two weapon defense feats together, but only allow them to gain the AC bonus when not attacking with both weapons. That gives the TWFer some benefit whenever he can't full attack while still being able to pile more damage on than S+B on a full attack. Of course, this invites problems with TWF being a sort of non-specialist style (and all the power problems that implies), but if balanced well it might be a good way to give TWF a specific role.
If sword+shield is the "defensive" style and THF is the "offensive" style, maybe TWF needs to be given the "versatile" role. Maybe fold the two-weapon fighting and two weapon defense feats together, but only allow them to gain the AC bonus when not attacking with both weapons. That gives the TWFer some benefit whenever he can't full attack while still being able to pile more damage on than S+B on a full attack. Of course, this invites problems with TWF being a sort of non-specialist style (and all the power problems that implies), but if balanced well it might be a good way to give TWF a specific role.

BS, a real shield fighter is one of the most aggressive people you'll ever meet. Do you have any idea how effective a shield is for opening up your opponent to attacks and knocking them off balance is? If anything a shield frees you up to be more aggressive because you have more ways to be aggressive without getting hurt. Fighting with two weapons or a two handed weapon requires you to be a whole lot more careful and defensive than fighting with a sword and shield does.

Why do people assume sword and board fighters turtle behind their shields? Only a complete and total amateur and idiot would do that. The shield is one of the most effective offensive tools a warrior can wield. A shield is as offensive a tool as it is a defensive tool, half the time you're blocking with a shield you're also trying to knock their weapon aside and them off balance.
So if we have any gun experts hanging around, is TWShooting really popular among people who are good? And I'm not talking Matrix style gun-fu. Even *I* know that's impractical.

I'm have no gun training or experience, but don't people usually brace guns (even the lightest calibers) with both hands to avoid recoil?

I can't help but notice that nobodies debated the weapon and shield being superior to both others comment of mine. Is it because you agree with me, or because you are all caught up on the two-hander vs two-handed?

Not much disagreement there. Shields are pretty good and need a little more love in 4e. Most of what beat shield fighting was reach and not power. (As far as I recall, anyway. This is an area of medieval tactics that I'm fuzzy on.) Thus polearms, but not other two-handers beat shields, IIRC.
Why do people assume sword and board fighters turtle behind their shields? Only a complete and total amateur and idiot would do that. The shield is one of the most effective offensive tools a warrior can wield. A shield is as offensive a tool as it is a defensive tool, half the time you're blocking with a shield you're also trying to knock their weapon aside and them off balance.

It's easy to envision, that's why. One of my complaints about 3E's martial combat in general was that it downplayed the active role one had to play when using a shield, and the feat trees to get the most out of a shield were almost as excessive as those of TWFing.