Offhand Attacks

[Eldorian]

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.

Move action. And make another move action called "aiming" which gives a +2 to hit with your next attack, which is not a feat required action, so that everyone can use the move if they're toe to toe, but your dual wielder can, instead of aiming, swing his offhand. Also, I wouldn't allow +str damage for offhand attacks made in this way.

 

[NMcCoy]

And make another move action called "aiming" which gives a +2 to hit with your next attack...

Nothing personal, but this seems like a really bad idea to me. 4e looks to be very careful about what it lets you use move actions for, and (aside from trading down for a minor) almost all of them encourage battlefield movement of some sort (either moving yourself, moving an ally, or moving a conjuration around). Your general-use aiming action encourages everyone to stay put. Compare the "Steady Shooter" paragon feat: while it seems similar at first (in that it's a bonus for not moving), note that it doesn't use up your move action, and in fact you can stay mobile while retaining the benefits by just shooting first and then moving each turn. If you make a +2 bonus for spending a move action to "aim" available to everyone for free, I think you run a high risk of revisiting 3.5's dull full-attack-fests.

 

[Eldorian]

Nothing personal, but this seems like a really bad idea to me. 4e looks to be very careful about what it lets you use move actions for, and (aside from trading down for a minor) almost all of them encourage battlefield movement of some sort (either moving yourself, moving an ally, or moving a conjuration around). Your general-use aiming action encourages everyone to stay put. Compare the "Steady Shooter" paragon feat: while it seems similar at first (in that it's a bonus for not moving), note that it doesn't use up your move action, and in fact you can stay mobile while retaining the benefits by just shooting first and then moving each turn. If you make a +2 bonus for spending a move action to "aim" available to everyone for free, I think you run a high risk of revisiting 3.5's dull full-attack-fests.

You have a point, but I don't think +2 to hit is as crazy good as 2-4 extra attacks a full attack gets you. It works in a war game I play, like I said, although, in that game, ranged attacks are generally relatively short ranged, charge attacks hit harder, and combat is about 10 times more deadly than in an rpg cause most things die in one hit. I think it'd be worth trying in a few games to see how it goes.

 

[Dracollich]

The quick punch is an interesting idea. After considering what everyone said concerning the various points, here is what I came up with. Take it or leave it.

Feat: Quick Punch

Once per encounter, after successfully hitting with an at-will melee attack, the PC can make a secondary attack with an off hand weapon, unarmed attack, or shield at STR -2 vs AC.
On Hit: 1[W] dealt from the off hand weapon, unarmed attack, or shield.

I can not remember if they have damage for shield. If not, I would say 1d6 for light shield and 1d8 for heavy shield.

 

[AZRogue]

Would making it an At-Will Power, all Martial Classes, be too powerful? Powers allow characters to do some crazy things and it would be balanced by forcing the character to choose the ability to attack with an off hand weapon instead of some other cool thing.

Quick Strike
At-Will - Minor Action - Martial - Melee
You launch a lightning fast offhand attack against a nearby foe.
This ability can only be used with a Light Blade.
Strength vs. AC
Hit: 1[W]+Strength

You could also make this require a Feat.

Quick Strike feat
Requirements: Martial Power, Dex 15
You may trade in one at-will power that you chose from your class power list and substitute it with the Quick Strike power instead.

 

[AZRogue]

Dracollich, I like the idea of adding in an option for a Shield bash. That fits a lot of character concepts, too. Damage doesn't have to be significant, but it would feel awesome to smash somebody's face with your shield now and then (and do damage as opposed to Pushing them).

 

[Xect]

Would making it an At-Will Power, all Martial Classes, be too powerful?

Yes. As a rule of thumb, if no sensible powergamer would ever NOT take a power, its probably too powerful.

 

[AZRogue]

Yes. As a rule of thumb, if no sensible powergamer would ever NOT take a power, its probably too powerful.

That's a good rule of thumb but I disagree that everyone would choose it. You can only choose 2 at-will powers and some of them are very good. You would be giving up a potentially more useful ability for the ability to use a minor action to make a basic attack. If you're not using your minor action to drink a potion or something else. I think it would hardly be overpowered.

Throw in the feat and you would be giving up a feat as well. That's a significant cost, IMO.

 

[DSRilk]

Giving someone a free attack with no penalty as a minor action is WAY too good. As far as feats go, I'd be more tempted to use something like:

Quick Strike
Requirements: DEX 13
You must be wielding two weapons to use this feat.
On a critical hit with your main-hand weapon when using a power that allows only one attack, you may make a secondary attack using your off-hand weapon.
STR vs AC
Deals [W] damage
Rogues may use DEX vs AC if their off-hand weapon is a light blade.

Shield Bash
Requirements: DEX 13, STR 13, Shield Proficiency
You must be wielding a shield to use this feat.
On a critical hit with your main-hand weapon when using a power that allows only one attack, you may make a secondary attack using your sheild against the same target.
STR vs AC
Deals d6 damage

 

[Kaffis]

That's a good rule of thumb but I disagree that everyone would choose it. You can only choose 2 at-will powers and some of them are very good. You would be giving up a potentially more useful ability for the ability to use a minor action to make a basic attack. If you're not using your minor action to drink a potion or something else. I think it would hardly be overpowered.

Throw in the feat and you would be giving up a feat as well. That's a significant cost, IMO.

But look at the benefit of this at-will power you're proposing: You get to make a normal attack with your standard action (which can even be an encounter power! but I'll use a basic attack just to be as conservative as possible) for 1[W]+Str, and then make a 1[W]+Str offhand attack. Now, compare to Twin Strike, the only TWF at-will in Core: two attacks for 1[W]. So, dumping a minor action (which is, for the most part, relatively rarely used) gives you 2xStr damage for the round or more. I'd take that at-will as a ranger *over* Twin Strike. Or, better yet, I'd take it AND Twin Strike, for 3[W]+Str in a round, and 3 attack rolls to potentially crit on.

Now, turn to the rogue, and you're doubling his opportunities to crit his sneak attack, which is a not insignificant benefit.

Finally, I really don't see the need for something like this. The Two Weapon Fighting feat already adds damage in a balanced manner, and as has been mentioned, fighters can gain the benefit of multiple weapon categories, and rogues can carry a light blade to key their powers off of, along with a heavier weapon for when they don't have CA or are making OAs. The Warlord is the only martial class I'm seeing that doesn't really get much mileage out of TWF beyond the +1 feats, and I'm pretty much okay with that.