Offhand Attacks

[AZRogue]

Other than Rangers there are no real offhand attacks in the game. Rangers, of course, can use at-will abilities to attack with two weapons, and that's fine, but I miss creating Fighters and Rogues with the same ability. The Feats for TWF presented in the PHB are excellent but not enough, in my opinion.

And so in the DMG I ran across the statblock for Barstomun Strongbeard on page 200. He's a pugilist who can make a quick punch as a Minor Action along with his normal punch standard action and it occurred to me that this would be an excellent way to make a feat to allow attacks with an offhand weapon. As a Minor Action it would not always be available as there are some nice things you can do with your Minor Action now, but when it was available it would be great.

So, what do you think? Would making a Feat to allow an offhand attack as a Minor Action be too overpowered? Requirements could be Light Blade, Dex 15, and maybe a -2 to the attack (but not your main attack)? I'm just looking for some opinions as I like the idea but am biased and want to make sure I'm not overlooking something.

 

[Fredrik Svanberg]

It seems balanced to me as long as your off-hand attack only does 1 point of damage. But you can reduce the prerequisite to Dex 13, remove the penalty to the attack roll and instead of a minor action just let it be a part of the regular attack action.

 

[mattdm]

Haven't played enough to judge, but I'd at the very least consider making it a move action rather than minor. The "need to use both standard and move actions to make two attacks" idea is something we're all pretty comfortable with from 3E and I think a minor action is just going to always be too good unless the penalty is outrageous.

 

[AZRogue]

I had originally thought of using a Move action but, after seeing the dwarf NPC and how he uses his Quick Punch as a Minor at-will action, I think that makes more sense for 4E. I think they're trying to avoid using Move actions for things not involving movement.

And the Quick Punch does full damage.

 

[TimeOut]

I agree. Minor action is more in line with the rules, but there should be another penalty. -2 to Attack and no Modifier bonus to damage seems ok.

 

[Xect]

Other than Rangers there are no real offhand attacks in the game. Rangers, of course, can use at-will abilities to attack with two weapons, and that's fine, but I miss creating Fighters and Rogues with the same ability. The Feats for TWF presented in the PHB are excellent but not enough, in my opinion.

The fighter does get to use two kinds of weapon though, for twice the special-power goodness.

 

[Eldorian]

Haven't played enough to judge, but I'd at the very least consider making it a move action rather than minor. The "need to use both standard and move actions to make two attacks" idea is something we're all pretty comfortable with from 3E and I think a minor action is just going to always be too good unless the penalty is outrageous.

I like this. I also like the default option for all characters of sacrificing a move for an aiming bonus, like in a war game I play. +2 to hit sounds good.

 

[Fredrik Svanberg]

I had originally thought of using a Move action but, after seeing the dwarf NPC and how he uses his Quick Punch as a Minor at-will action, I think that makes more sense for 4E. I think they're trying to avoid using Move actions for things not involving movement.

And the Quick Punch does full damage.

NPCs don't use the same rules as characters. Making the Quick Punch into a feat is obviously overpowered. Feats aren't supposed to be that good. That is a feat that every PC could use almost every turn of combat. Would you make a melee-centered character without it? Perhaps not a sword-and-board fighter but as worded you don't even have to use two weapons. A character using a twohanded weapon can let go of it with one hand and punch someone as a minor action, or if they have quickdraw, draw a second weapon, perhaps a bastard sword, and use that. Then use another minor action to sheathe it again.

Congratulations, you have created a greatsword-bastardsword wielding mutant.

 

[AZRogue]

NPCs aren't built the same, very true. I think, though, that looking at some of their abilities is a good way to find things that CAN work for the PCs. Take gnomes. They can fade away when attacked. If you decide to play one ... you can fade away when attacked. Just because the ability is possessed by a monster doesn't, obviously, exclude it from the players' hands.

Balance issues are very important, though, and I really don't like making the ability into a Feat. Maybe a power of some sort? I'm not sure, just thinking about how it could be done.

 

[NMcCoy]

This should definitely not be a feat. 4e seems pretty clear that feats don't give you new powers (Channel Divinity gives you another way to use an existing Encounter power - the budgeting stays the same). That said, I think it'd be fine as an Encounter power for a martial class acquired by the usual method, something along the lines of:

Offhand Strike
Encounter ✦ Martial, Weapon
Minor Action Melee weapon
Requirement: You must be wielding two melee weapons.
Target: One creature
Attack: Dexterity vs. AC (off-hand weapon)
Hit: 1[W] + Dexterity modifier damage.

Edit: Okay, I guess multiclass feats give you a new power, but my point is that if it makes sense to be written as a power then it probably shouldn't be a feat.