Two Weapon Fighting

[Kzach]

One of the things that I've always been disappointed about in 4e is the handling of TWF. A solution to the issues I have with its implementation in 4e came to me just now whilst watching the new Conan (2 out of 5 stars).

The focus on attacking with two weapons has always been about damage. But what if the focus shifted towards supplying the wielder with a greater chance to hit?

So instead of rolling once, when wielding one weapon in each hand, you can roll twice and use the highest result. This would allow anyone to dual-wield and gain a benefit from it. Much like Twin Strike, however, because you're swinging two weapons at a time, the agility, concentration, movement and technique are wholly different so without special training, you can't apply your ability modifier to the damage dealt.

Two Weapon Fighting would then be a feat that allowed you to add your ability modifier damage to the attack.

 

[Rune]

Looks nifty, but what about multiple targets? ('Cause sometime, that's the point.)

If both attacks hit, perhaps half damage goes to each target (still no ability modifiers).

What about two special attacks? I had a player who wanted his PC to make two grab attacks (one with each hand) in yesterday's game. He's a home-brew Essentials-style defender monk (so no flurry), and being able to grab two foes during a surprise round would have been useful, but the rules prevented it (I did rule that, in his case, he could make one grab check at the end of a charge).

Still, if introducing dual attacks for everybody, it would be nice to see something like this, as well.

 

[aco175]

My initial thought is that the 2 rolls would be a good idea. I would have a feat or something to have two-weapon in the first place though. It seems that everyone would carry a dagger in the off hand to be able to swing twice. This would follow with the shield with a poker on the end and the rod/club all wanting to count as an offhand weapon.

The invoker already gets 2 rolls and Twin Strike/ Dual Strike also is in game. Not sure what would/should make these different. Is defenders and strikers the only classes to get these powers?

Maybe something that a feat would allow a off hand atk if the first one missed, or a more simple 1/2 damage on the second roll. Would a second roll at -2 be worthy.

Also something with follow-on feats at paragon or epic being to negate these penalties.

 

[Kzach]

Looks nifty, but what about multiple targets? ('Cause sometime, that's the point.)

Multi-targeting is a problem in 4e and one of the (many) reasons why the ranger power Twin Strike is OP.

I don't see a need for this to be a multi-attack ability; it's simply a way in which you can wield weapons. I would say that it works with any power because its drawback is built-in and requires a feat to overcome.

 

[Kzach]

My initial thought is that the 2 rolls would be a good idea. I would have a feat or something to have two-weapon in the first place though. It seems that everyone would carry a dagger in the off hand to be able to swing twice. This would follow with the shield with a poker on the end and the rod/club all wanting to count as an offhand weapon.

Well, part of my motivation for doing this was so that it would be available to anyone, hence why having a feat to overcome the drawback. Requiring a feat just to dual-wield at all would partly defeat the purpose of the rule and also make it somewhat difficult to justify.

The invoker already gets 2 rolls and Twin Strike/ Dual Strike also is in game. Not sure what would/should make these different. Is defenders and strikers the only classes to get these powers?

Maybe something that a feat would allow a off hand atk if the first one missed, or a more simple 1/2 damage on the second roll. Would a second roll at -2 be worthy.

Also something with follow-on feats at paragon or epic being to negate these penalties.

I think you mean Avenger.

Also, one of the other reasons I wanted to come up with something like this was to get rid of Twin Strike altogether. It's a horrible and ill-conceived power that should've been nerfed into oblivion a LONG time ago.

Half-damage is something to be avoided at all costs. I was very surprised they introduced it with Melee Training as it was a design goal of 4e to do away with that type of math. And a second -2 just complicates things beyond necessity.

Two rolls using MH stats, highest counts, don't add ability modifier damage unless you have the TWF feat. Nice and simple.

 

[Mentat55]

Rolling two dice for a single attack and taking the highest is a very strong ability, it can work out to be a +4 bonus to attack rolls (actual benefit depends on the defense vs. attack bonus), not to mention a doubling of crit chance. It is also, as mentioned, the striker mechanic for the avenger.

Wouldn't this make two-weapon fighting the best option for every melee class? Even if you had to take the TWF feat to get the ability mod to damage, that is a pretty small cost.

 

[Kzach]

Rolling two dice for a single attack and taking the highest is a very strong ability, it can work out to be a +4 bonus to attack rolls (actual benefit depends on the defense vs. attack bonus), not to mention a doubling of crit chance. It is also, as mentioned, the striker mechanic for the avenger.

Wouldn't this make two-weapon fighting the best option for every melee class? Even if you had to take the TWF feat to get the ability mod to damage, that is a pretty small cost.

I have considered it as being a great benefit but then again, so is having a shield. Although, I've always felt that the benefit from shields wasn't quite enough. To off-set this and bring shields back as a force in the game (heavy armor also needs a looking at), you could always say light shields = +2 AC & Reflex and heavy shields = +4 AC & Reflex. Probably something that should've been done in the first place anyway.

One idea I also considered was denying the proficiency bonus when attacking with two weapons untrained. Given that rolling twice for a single attack can apparently be the equivalent of anything from +2 to +5 (at least that's what I've read), there's still arguably a good benefit from rolling twice and denying the ability mod to damage but not so much of a benefit that it makes sense for everyone and their dog to do it.

If done this way, you could then have a two-feat structure. One to regain the proficiency bonus and another to gain the ability mod to damage.

Then of course I think that versatile needs an overhaul to make wielding a single weapon in two hands more of a benefit. I reckon making versatile grant +1 extra to hit would do bastard swords wonders. Plus, at least in my mind, it makes more sense than more damage since you have greater control but generally less leverage.

 

[aco175]

You do seem to have your thoughts together. I like the simpler the better method, even if it takes slightly from realism- like knocking a ooze prone.

I keep going back to the feeling it is taking something away from the other classes it was given to. Would this ability be something people would want to take enough to fayor one class over another? I do like the feat to be able to add ability damage. How many attacks would a 2wf Avenger have-3?

It's good to see where things would become broken first before letting it loose in your game.