Races and Classes, Two-Weapon Fighting?

[Zaruthustran]

Based on what I have seen I am guessing rogues use it for follow-up attacks.

I don't know about that. It's weird that the game would force you to use two weapons in order if you wanted to get the benefit of your double-attack maneuver. What if you wanted to instead make two quick strikes with the same weapon?

From what I've read of 4E, this edition is all about greater imagination: more creative interpretations of fluff and descriptive elements. For example, the elimination of a single magical recipe for *all* spells (a human's "magic missile" requires the exact same words and gestures as a goblin's/kuo-toa's/shambling mound's/angel's/stone giant's). In 4e, the exact process by which a character evokes magic seems to be entirely up to the player (aside from the basic requirement of somehow utilizing some sort of implement).

 

[Imp]

Anyway, it seems like the most "common sense" solution for TWF that sticks to the proposed "reduce # of attacks" paradigm is to allow TWF to add +1 to either attack rolls or AC, at your option each round. The +1 to AC is not as good as the +2 from a big shield, but then again the shield can't be used to give an attack bonus. And then there's the advantage of having a light weapon already in hand (for cases of grappled and swallowed whole, or when you need to make a ranged attack but can't spare a Move action to draw). The other advantage is that when you make the attack, you can choose which weapon is the weapon that actually delivers the blow. So if you dual wield a flaming sword and a ghost touch dagger

Yeah, I generally like this. Another, more gamist option is to make it really good at carving up large numbers of weaker foes, and with the "minion" monster template and the general monster/PC power balance in 4E this could actually be a useful option.

Like, it would be nice if cleave-type feats were for TWF fighters, so THF doesn't totally steal that shtick.

 

[Plane Sailing]

1) Better radius of control. In 3e terms, you'd be harder to flank because you can effectively deal with something in a broader area.

2) This also translates to a better defense. I could defend against more opponents and be more effective in doing so with an off-hand weapon. I'd give a defense bonus to a TWF character.

The impression which I get of Florentine fighting (renaissance sword and dagger) was that although you would normally use your dagger for parrying, and indeed it often had extra stuff to help it with sword catching, a particularly good use was when you and your opponents bound your primary weapons together you had something handy to gut him with in your spare hand.

I could easily see TWF being used to give a damage bonus or an attack bonus.

 

[Kaffis]

With fighters as defenders, I have no problem with TWF not being amongst their schtick.

Note, however, that the distinction made time and again in R&C is "either weapon and shield or *two-handed* weapon" -- which means that double sided weapons might still be in, and I think that's a good position.

Shields in D&D always feel neglected to me, but perhaps that's my playing group's biases at work. The only time I remember a shield being used was when one of the guys was going for dwarven defender. I'm hoping that there will be weapon tricks that focus on shield use (shield bashes, shield walls, etc) that make shields cool again.

I'm pretty sure that references have been made to rogues and rangers doing things "whether from range or up close and personal with their blades" -- blades, plural. So I wouldn't pronounce TWF dead just yet, though I think it's reasonable to read the stuff we've seen as indicating that it's primarily the domain of the striker now.

 

[Mercule]

The impression which I get of Florentine fighting (renaissance sword and dagger) was that although you would normally use your dagger for parrying, and indeed it often had extra stuff to help it with sword catching, a particularly good use was when you and your opponents bound your primary weapons together you had something handy to gut him with in your spare hand.

Sounds about right. I thought I had something in there about a bonus AoO, but I must have edited it out. That extra zone of control would really be pretty handy if someone close by decided to dive into a pack or read a scroll.

 

[SCMrks]

Page 61 of R&C says it is still possible to support a dancing fencer or two-weapon fighter. So it is not eliminated as an option. It just may not be the best build for a defender.

 

[Umbran]

For instance, an untrained individual would find it as difficult to be effective with sword and board as with two small-medium sized weapons.

While it is only mock fighting, my work in SCA heavy list combat suggests this is not true. While it does take some learning to become good at shield work, one gets some benefit from it right off. But to start with, picking up a second weapon and trying to use it puts you at a distinct disadvantage. It takes a whole lot more to get good at two-weapon work.

 

[ZombieRoboNinja]

R&C says that the ranger and rogue killed the swashbuckler and took his stuff. So I'm guessing the best class for a TWF combatant, or any other "dex fighter", will be either a rogue, ranger, or a multiclass including at least one of those two.

 

[SPECTRE666]

On page 61 in R&C, in the last paragraph it mentioned 2WF.

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

If TWF isn't available and finally competetive for warrior types in 4e, it'll be several points against the new edition in my book.