Excerpt: Weapons (MERGE)

[HeinorNY]

Why should wielding one weapon automatically get you one attack per turn?

It doesn't.

 

[ryryguy]

The excerpt did not state, nor even imply, that only Rangers can make two attacks via TWF. The excerpt only gave the following base rule:

An off-hand weapon is light enough that you can hold it and attack effectively with it while holding a weapon in your main hand. You can’t attack with both weapons in the same turn, unless you have a power that lets you do so, but you can attack with either weapon.

Remember this is an exception based system. No exceptions were discussed in the excerpt (not just regarding TWF, but anything really!). So there is room for plenty of exceptions to allow more flexible TWF: feats, powers, etc. which may not be restricted to Ranger. In fact I think it's a pretty safe bet to say there will be some such exceptions available to non-Rangers, though also pretty safe bet that the best ones will be Ranger-only.

And as far as base rules go, this is a not ungenerous one. There are no penalties at all for wielding an off hand weapon, and some minor payoff in versatility as others have noted, even if it only comes up in odd situations.

Some people here are going off half-cocked, which I think is a bit ironic in a discussion of two-weapon fighting...

 

[DonAdam]

I'll be really happy if its:

Sword and board: AC bonus
Two-handed: Extra damage
Two-weapon: To hit bonus

I think the idea of using one weapon to set up the other attack fits the cinematic style of TWF much better.

Now if only I could think of something for fencers... Of course, I guess the ability to initiate grapples and pick stuff up without dropping a weapon should count for something.

 

[ProfessorCirno]

Or a staff used as half staff can take advantage of holes in the defense on both parts of the enemy, as well as make a fast furry of blows, if the opponents lets his defense down (otherwise those flurries only hit your opponents staff and prepare a real hit)

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I like the categories and descriptors. They definitely look useful.

On Two-Weapon Fighting: Granting extra attacks due to wielding multiple weapons doesn't fit well into the 4E system. Most character attacks will use powers, and each power has a description what kind of action it requires to use. How do you handle this with making multiple attacks? Either you can only use a power and ignore the off-hand attack, or you grant the benefits twice, which obviously leads to overpowered effects. Neither is satisfying.

So, if you want to fight with two-weapons, all the time, you'll need a power for it. I wonder if it will be a at-will attack power for the Ranger (I don't know if that would be balanced), but I think most of the time, you'll use your encounter powers to gain extra attacks. To compensate, you won't suffer any penalties.

A general tendency for 4E seems to be to eliminate direct penalties. You don't get a non-proficiency penalty, but a proficiency bonus. When you perform a special maneuver (via a power), you don't suffer penalty or bonuses, but you get to deal damage and a special effect. To compensate, you can't do it at-will.
It's only consistent to do the same for two-weapon fighting.

People might still disagree with this basic design assumptions, but that's what they are, and I think it is a wise choice not to break with them without a real need.

I hope as much as anyone else that it will be easy to add additional two-weapon fighting powers to other characters, but I can live without it. If two-weapon fighting is my character shtick, why _not_ play a Ranger?

 

[Torchlyte]

Well it is worth noting that throughout history I don't believe there has ever been a fighting style in the real world that used two equal sized long blades. One might reasonably assume that there is a very good reason for this.

I'm don't necessarily disagree, but expense would be a realistic hurdle in many cases.

 

[Parlan]

Well it is worth noting that throughout history I don't believe there has ever been a fighting style in the real world that used two equal sized long blades. One might reasonably assume that there is a very good reason for this.

Well said, sir. Touche.

 

[FireLance]

I hope as much as anyone else that it will be easy to add additional two-weapon fighting powers to other characters, but I can live without it. If two-weapon fighting is my character shtick, why _not_ play a Ranger?

Concept. They might not necessarily want the Nature-themed abilities.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I'm don't necessarily disagree, but expense would be a realistic hurdle in many cases.

I've only D&D prices available for comparison, but I've got the impression that armor and horses are traditionally more expensive then weapons. And troops definitely managed to give their soldiers armor and horses. But they didn't create special "two-weapon fighting brigades". There might be a reason for it...

 

[Falling Icicle]

Well it is worth noting that throughout history I don't believe there has ever been a fighting style in the real world that used two equal sized long blades. One might reasonably assume that there is a very good reason for this.

Actually, I believe Miyamoto Musashi developed a very effective two-sword fighting style back in the 1600s. I'm sure that wasn't the only instance of two-sword fighting in history.