Two Weapon Fighting

253 posts / 0 new
Last post
Because I can't STAND the new two weapon fighting feat:

Two Weapon Fighting - Gain the at-will power Dual Strike - Melee, Standard Action, must be holding a weapon in each hand, you make one basic attack with either weapon. If you are not using a main and offhand weapon, you take a -2 on attacks while using Dual Strike
I don't know if you feat is sound, but I wholeheartly agree that TWF is just a joke in 4e. I haven't checked the ranger in detail but it seems he's the only one who CAN twf.
As a man who craves two-weapon fighting, I don't mind the new setup--the +1 damage from non-ranger fighters clearly means that attackers are using both weapons at once and increasing the damage that way. Simultaneously, I would very much like it if there were a few "universal At-Will powers" that could let characters dual-wield or perform other fancy melee/ranged feats, with fighters, rangers, and so on having unique or improved versions (e.g. rangers can Florentine or use advanced dual-wielding techniques).
I don't know if you feat is sound, but I wholeheartly agree that TWF is just a joke in 4e. I haven't checked the ranger in detail but it seems he's the only one who CAN twf.

Which was my problem: One specific class should not be the only one to be able to fight with two weapons, hence my (somewhat hasty) creation of this.

Suggestions on improvements/modifications to make it more sound?
As a man who craves two-weapon fighting, I don't mind the new setup--the +1 damage from non-ranger fighters clearly means that attackers are using both weapons at once and increasing the damage that way. Simultaneously, I would very much like it if there were a few "universal At-Will powers" that could let characters dual-wield or perform other fancy melee/ranged feats, with fighters, rangers, and so on having unique or improved versions (e.g. rangers can Florentine or use advanced dual-wielding techniques).

While I do believe that the absurd number of attacks you could get in 3.5 was a bit excessive, just getting a excessively small attack damage from the feat in 4th is not sufficient in my book.

I do agree though: i wish there were a few more options for fancy melee/ranged feats, ect. I'm going to till I see what else they come up with.

I really don't typically customize feats or such, but this was one of the only times I just HAD to change something.
Could someone elaborate how it works in core?
There isn't really anything to elaborate on... =S You get +1 damage. End story. Kind of weak... it doesn't even say that you get enhanced damage for wielding a +# weapon in your off hand.
I think Dual Wielding should be a general feature of all Martial classes that reads something like...
"Whenever you make a melee attack while dual wielding you may choose to make a basic attack with your off-hand weapon. If this attack hits, it deals minimum damage and only half of the Strength Modifier is added. Off hand attacks cannot score Critical Hits but still qualify for an automatic hit on natural 20s."
This gives a pretty decent chance for additional damage for wielding two weapons while not upping the dual wielder's damage output too much. I'd also like to think that some sort of penalty should be applied to both the primary and the off-hand attack. Then the Two-Weapon Fighting feat can reduce the penalty.
What y'all think?
Well there is more too it then just that, in that you can carry a weapon in your off-hand, if it is a off-hand weapon without any kind of penalty, and you can use that weapon instead of your main weapon with any attack (that it is allowed to be used in).

So this means you can switch back and forth between magical effects of a weapon, use different powers that need different weapons and choose proficiency over damage, or damage over proficiency without even needing to take the two-weapon feat.
Sure, you can hold a weapon in each hand but here is the thing... If you were to switch to that weapon in your off-hand and strike with it, you are still striking with a weapon in your off-hand. Off-Hand implies that the strength and mental orientation of that arm is weaker than that of your Main-Hand... so a penalty should be applied even if you aren't swinging both weapons at once. Dig?
Well, I think it is assumed if your doing this, your already trained somewhat in using a weapon in that other hand. If you weren't as someone adventuring your pretty stupid to hinder yourself that way.

Thus, there is no RAW mechanic that states there is any penalty involved. Really the only limitation is it has to be a weapon with the "Off-Hand" property.
True enough... I know there *isn't* a penalty but weapons that lack the Off-Hand property but are still One-Handed should be wielded in the Off-Hand as a penalty. This would give way to an Ambidextrous feat.
Oh well... I'm sure the Martial Class Supplement coming out this year will say *something* about Dual Wielding...
I truely hope that it comes up with something in the Martial Suppliment to augement or replace what in the Players Handbook...that rather disappointed me. *grumbles a bit more and goes back to reading*
Hm, I think I'll have "plus on the off-hand = bonus to TWF damage" house rule.

I don't mind the no-Strength-bonus for the two-weapon-fighting power, incidentally. Now you can deal more raw damage than the nastiest single melee weapon instead of doing roughly the same but with a little more Strength damage and less accuracy.

EDIT: Also, Good Lord, a ranger with bastard sword proficiency dual-wielding bastard swords. It just hit me like dual-wielded bastard swords to the gut.
Most off-hand weapons were traditionally used to parry, or cause a defenders focus to be elsewhere while the main hand slips past a guard. A simple plus to damage accomplishes this, in my mind.
What happens in the event that the the off-hand weapon actually makes it into the body of an opponent? A +1 damage doesn't emulate that much at all... I guess I'll just keep pimping my own house rule up in here. =D I've sort of rewrote it since then to include my own ideas on penalties and Critical Hits.
EDIT: Also, Good Lord, a ranger with bastard sword proficiency dual-wielding bastard swords. It just hit me like dual-wielded bastard swords to the gut.

Try a bugbear ranger. Two LARGE bastard swords, each a 110 inches long, or 2,7 meters! (assuming that large is still twice as tall as medium)

The guy's got 5 and a half meters of swords on him! Madness!
Try a bugbear ranger. Two LARGE bastard swords, each a 110 inches long, or 2,7 meters! (assuming that large is still twice as tall as medium)

The guy's got 5 and a half meters of swords on him! Madness!

I... I think I'm in love.
I... I think I'm in love.

....do recall that is a Bugbear you are speaking about...you know, large, hairy...some what remenicent of my uncle....*shudder*
....do recall that is a Bugbear you are speaking about...you know, large, hairy...some what remenicent of my uncle....*shudder*

"Yeah, remember Templar3378's uncle?"
"The one who dual-wields 1 story-high swords?"
"Ya ya, that's the one."

One of the concepts I had in my head before I heard what the ranger can actually do was, in fact, a woman dual-wielding a pair of bastard swords (and other stuff, but the relevant thing here is the TWF). I was quite pleased when I heard the ranger is capable of this feat.

Then go ahead and sprinkle on dipping into fighter for self-healing powers and taking the Pathfinder paragon path for, well, everything it does. There is no hiding behind the paladin here. I think the only thing I'm uncertain about is whether to crank the Dex hardcore and stick to hide specialization or make room for two more feats to specialize in scale instead and put more ability points into Constitution or Wisdom.

Now, if I wanted to TWF with any class but the ranger (and possibly the rogue, who does have a perfectly good reason to take the TWF feats, unlike classes that get shields and/or two-handed weapons), I really would be bothered.

I do, however, anticipate that the Martial Power splatbook will include options for two-weapon fighters; that was explicitly mentioned as a possible fighter build in the Races and Classes book. Add a new choice of fighter weapon talent--+1 to attack rolls when wielding two one-handed weapons (which is more specific than +1 to attack rolls with one-handed weapons) and the ability to treat any one-handed weapon as though it had the off-hand property--and then add fighter powers that reward the use of two weapons at once, many of which would likely be a little more defensive than the ranger's. That would be reasonably straightforward. I also wouldn't be surprised if in the future we see rogue powers that give a nod to two-weapon fighting. I kind of doubt the likelihood of paladin, battle cleric, or warlord powers or features that reward it, however.
as far as TWF goes, I would like a slightly more realistic system, but I'm not that worried about it, after all dnd combat is a very abstract system. For the most part I'm just glad they nerfed the old mechanics of if you have a second weapon you get another attack, and if you take a couple of feats you get 2-3 more. My own personal fighting experience tells me that you can make the same number of attacks (ie physical swingings of a weapon) wether your dual wielding, shield wielding, or using a two handed. or even a single one handed. the difference two weapon fighting makes is that your opponent has to keep track of both the main and off-hand weapons, but so do you. Without training, it's nigh impossible to dual wield effectively, however, i assume that the martial classes all have some training in all forms of combat using any weapons their proficient with, including twf, thus the feat as far as i'm concerned is a form of specialization. now, if you wanted to, you could make a twf proficiency feat, that negates some form of penalty, and then stick twf on the list of proficiencies for the fighter ranger and rogue. For the most part though, as was said above, twf is meant to distract your opponent with one weapon so the other can hit better, so a +1 to damage is great, take two weapon defense and now your using it as a shield as well, although I'm thinking about removing two weapon defenses prereq for twf, because it doesn't make since to me that you can't learn to block with it until after you learn to use it offensively, finally, I might bump twf up to a +2, just because +1 is kinda small. oh, and what someone said about what if the off hand weapon connects? that's why you can choose to attack with either one.
Want a non-ranger to dual wield? Why not multiclass ranger?
Well, back in the day, I had a player in my group, a dual-wielding ranger, and he just dominated so much that the other characters all had to dual-wield just to keep up. Which was okay, but I though the Bard dual-wielding bastard swords was a little much (plus, he had Monkey Grip, so, he already did effectively what you were talking about above), so I'm glad its been toned down. I do know a guy that said he hated that you couldn't attack different targets, but that was always stupid anyway, because I am lead to believe that that is nearly impossible (something to do with how our eyes are set up or something).

I will admit that it does kinda suck that you pretty much have to be a Ranger to dual-wield, my last group had a Paladin that dual-wielded longsword and heavy shield (yes, he bashed people. A lot), but I'm not too disappointed. Also, though, I do believe that they already mentioned on the WotC main site that you could easily house rule it that if you have TWD, your off-hand weapon would be considered a shield for Fighter abilities. I haven't looked at the fighter in-depth, but that'd probably work pretty well, simply deciding that powers that specifically deal with bashing have to be made with a bludgeoning weapon. I see no problem with this. In fact, this would also work in reverse, allowing a shield to act as an off-hand weapon (of course, you can't use it offensively and still keep your AC/Reflex bonus, and I don't think TWD would work with it either, because that would just be...weird...).
Two Weapon Fighting - Gain the at-will power Dual Strike - Melee, Standard Action, must be holding a weapon in each hand, you make one basic attack with either weapon. If you are not using a main and offhand weapon, you take a -2 on attacks while using Dual Strike

This is significantly stronger than the Ranger's Twin Strike power, since it would add Strength bonus to damage.
If I were to make a non-Ranger version of Twin Strike, I might do something like this:

Requirement: You must be wielding two weapons.
Target: One creature
Attack: Strength vs. AC (main-hand weapon)
Hit: 1[W] damage. Make a secondary attack.
Secondary Target: One creature
Secondary Attack: Strength vs. AC (off-hand weapon)
Secondary Hit: 1[W] damage.

This is comparable to a basic attack, and not as good as Twin Strike - which seems fair, considering that Twin Strike is easily one of the best at-wills of any class.




[deck=Double Strike]Feat Attack 1
At-Will Martial, Weapon
IMAGE(http://www.ariagames.net/forums/smilies/melee.gif)Standard Action Melee
Requirement: You must be wielding two melee weapons.
Target: One creature
Attack: Strength vs. AC (main hand)
Hit: 1[w] damage, make a secondary attack
Secondary Target: Same creature targeted by primary attack.
Secondary Attack: Strength vs. AC (offhand)
Hit: 1[w] damage[/deck]
Regardless of anything, I wouldn't make it a replacement for the TWF feat in the PHB. I assumed that was not a feat that said "I know how to fight with two weapons" but instead one that says "I fight better when I'm holding two weapons" and as such was a way to specialize in the style more and make up a bit for not carrying a shield after getting both of them.
Want a non-ranger to dual wield? Why not multiclass ranger?

Or you could play a half elf...




[deck=Double Strike]Feat Attack 1
At-Will Martial, Weapon
IMAGE(http://www.ariagames.net/forums/smilies/melee.gif)Standard Action Melee
Requirement: You must be wielding two melee weapons.
Target: One creature
Attack: Strength vs. AC, two attacks
Hit: 1[w] damage[/deck]

It's still giving an at-will power for a single feat with virtually no prerequisite, which is unprecedented. Moreover, the power gained is one of the most powerful in the game.
Or you could play a half elf...

Yup. Dilettante FTW.
It's still giving an at-will power for a single feat with virtually no prerequisite, which is unprecedented. Moreover, the power gained is one of the most powerful in the game.

It only allows you to attack one target instead of two like twin strike. In addition, it doesn't add any ability modifiers to it. It doesn't have any secondary effects either like a lot of other at wills. Not to mention the character is spending a feat to acquire it.
Normally getting a new at will costs you

a. one of your at wills
b. your paragon path


That's a much higher cost than a single heroic feat.
And most people aren't going to have a use for it. It's merely a power to add a bit of two-weapon fighting flavor to their character without being a ranger.
And most people aren't going to have a use for it.

meaning less.

You don't balance melee feats based on how goof they are for wizards.


You balance based on the best case.

Best case is a fighter/ranger who saves him self a paragon path for the cost of one feat. Which is... broken.
A ranger isn't going to have any use for the feat or power. They're going to have Twin Strike, which is better. A fighter multi-classed into a ranger and takes the paragon multi-classing option is going to be able to get twin strike as an at-will. The thing that makes this feat worthwhile for the fighter (mc ranger) is that during heroic levels, they can double strike at-will, rather than twin strike once per encounter.

It lets them be the TWF fighter rather than the guy who strikes with both weapons only once per combat.
Because I can't STAND the new two weapon fighting feat:

Two Weapon Fighting - Gain the at-will power Dual Strike - Melee, Standard Action, must be holding a weapon in each hand, you make one basic attack with either weapon. If you are not using a main and offhand weapon, you take a -2 on attacks while using Dual Strike

Twin Strike a Ranger's at will, grants two attacks with out bonus damage from strength or enhancment

Using default of 50% hit, this means that 75% of the time they get at least 1 hit, and 25% of the time they get 2, using a bastard sword for damage yields 6.875 damage/round.

Your method for a ranger with a 18 strength yields 64% of one hit, 16% of two hits, at 7.5 (assuming non human, so can't get bastard sword) damage per hit 7.2 damage/round. An increase of almost 5%, as your strength increases the effective bonus on damage also does.

At level 30, ranger: 11base, 13.75 damage/round
At level 30, ranger with your power (by now with bastard sword strength boosts all the while (18+10 = 28): 27 (6 from enahncment, 1 from feat, 9 from attribute) base, 25.92 damage an increase of 88.5%

This feat makes twin strike useless to a two weapon fighting ranger, even if just for the fact that they can select this feat and with a 16+ strength not need to have twin strike so have two Other at will powers, and the damage climbs unlike twin strike by itself.
TWF fighter rather than the guy who strikes with both weapons only once per combat.

then why didn't they just make a ranger/fighter?
Updated the double strike power, to use a primary/secondary attack. This makes it even weaker than twin strike, but is still useful to a melee character wishing to have the at-will flavor of wielding two weapons.
then why didn't they just make a ranger/fighter?

Maybe because they didn't want to be a damned ranger.
Updated the double strike power, to use a primary/secondary attack. This makes it even weaker than twin strike, but is still useful to a melee character wishing to have the at-will flavor of wielding two weapons.

I would specify the secondary attack comes from the off hand weapon, to prevent confusion. Otherwise yours is a reasonable way to let fighters and paladins dual wield, especially as it prevents fighters from marking two opponents in a round.
Cool, making that change about the off-hand weapon.
Maybe because they didn't want to be a damned ranger.

what about such a character makes him a 'damned ranger'?
Sign In to post comments