pawsplay's dealbreaker list

[pawsplay]

No, -10 is the penalty for off-hand attacks in 3rd edition. The One that's supposedly so supportive of TWF.

The fact is, in 3e, a character who wasn't built for TWF sucked at it.

In 4e, a character who isn't built for TWF sucks at it.

The only difference is the manner in which they suck.

Can you substantiate that? I'm looking at a 1e Player's Handbook and I do not see a reference to fighting with two weapons at all.

 

[ryryguy]

Maybe it has something to do with 15+ years of combat sports experience that tells me two longswords is better than one longsword. For much of history, two weapons has been the preference. A single weapon is used for some kinds of dueling. A shield is useful for some kinds of warfare. But for individual combat, you want a two-handed weapon or two weapons. Not using one hand for attack would be like going into a boxing match and only using one hand for punching.

Sure, I don't disagree - fighting with two weapons should be a viable style in D&D combat. But why does that absolutely have to be modeled as "one attack with each in the same round"? Not just that, but that a character with no particular skill or training (feat or power) should have the opportunity to attack once with each weapon (even if at a big penalty)? At least I think that is what you are saying, please correct me if I have misunderstood.

I'm completely okay with that, but wielding two weapons with some reasonable level of skill should be an advantage. Which currently it is not. And since in D&D you could have a situation where one weapon does flaming damage and the other crits extra hard, using some kind of mechanic that involves two separate attack rolls is probably best.

We haven't seen it yet, but I'm pretty confident there will be some advantages granted to combatants with "some reasonable level of skill" (read: feats) fighting with two weapons. That advantage just may not be implemented as one attack with each weapon.

As for having weapons with two different "procs" being best with two separate attack rolls - well sure, that would be a tremendous way to grant an advantage to the two-weapon fighter. But I would suggest that's one of the big reasons that "one attack with each weapon" is very problematic when it comes to balance.

 

[pawsplay]

I don't appreciate the fact that two-weapon fighting isn't seem to be available without using powers...of course, we don't know that that's true. It's an assumption.

Some one-handed weapons are light enough for you to use in your off hand while holding another one-handed weapon in your other hand. Doing this doesn’t let you make multiple attacks in a round (unless you have powers that let you do so), but you can attack with either weapon. Other one-handed weapons are large enough that you can keep a good grip on them with two hands and deal extra damage by using them as two-handed weapons.

 

[pawsplay]

As for having weapons with two different "procs" being best with two separate attack rolls - well sure, that would be a tremendous way to grant an advantage to the two-weapon fighter. But I would suggest that's one of the big reasons that "one attack with each weapon" is very problematic when it comes to balance.

Whereas does it any other way is very problematic when it comes to deciding whether you hit, how much damage you cause, and what "procs" activate. How would you do it?

 

[pawsplay]

I am looking at the AD&D 2.5 Player's Handbook right now, and I see that only fighters and rogues can attack with two weapons, and that it is impossible to attack with two longswords. Holding a longsword in each hand grants no advantage to any person of any skill at any time.

 

[Parlan]

Whereas does it any other way is very problematic when it comes to deciding whether you hit, how much damage you cause, and what "procs" activate. How would you do it?

The procs can be problematic to conceptualize.

That said, I could handle something like:

Attack with either weapon, but resolve the hit using whichever weapon has a higher proficiency bonus, and any enhancement bonus on the weapon being used to attack.

(So someone with a +1 warhammer and a dagger would use the +3 proficiency bonus granted by the dagger, and add the +1 from the warhammer for a +4 to hit. They would do d10 +1 (+ str bonus) damage.)

 

[pawsplay]

The procs can be problematic to conceptualize.

That said, I could handle something like:

Attack with either weapon, but resolve the hit using whichever weapon has a higher proficiency bonus, and any enhancement bonus on the weapon being used to attack.

(So someone with a +1 warhammer and a dagger would use the +3 proficiency bonus granted by the dagger, and add the +1 from the warhammer for a +4 to hit. They would do d10 +1 (+ str bonus) damage.)

There were MUDs that used to do it that way. It was dissatisfying in many ways, though. For instance, wielding a +1 longsword and a +5 dagger was the same as wielding a +5 longsword and a +5 dagger.

 

[AllisterH]

Hmm?

Didn't we debunk the myth that TWF was the superior fighting form back in 2E on rec.games.frp.dnd?

It has risen again?

 

[Deep Blue 9000]

*No second attacks with a second weapon unless you take a power. This is a 1e-ism I can live without. It bothered me then, it bothers me now.

I think the key here is the "unless you take a power." Powers in 4e are extremely mundane. Consider the rogue power Deft Strike. It let's you move two squares before the attack. Whoopdedo.

In this context, it's reasonable that something as simple as attacking with two weapons would be a power.

 

[ZetaStriker]

If I give the goblins and the dwarves 1 hp, strange things happen. And if I don't, then the minion rules have not assisted me in the encounter design at all. It's just a really bad design. The only advantage is that you can say, "Well, they die in one hit, so that's pretty much like having 1 hp," which is a conclusion most DMs can handle on the fly. What I want in the MM is stats for stuff I would prefer not to have to make up on the fly.

Why do they all have to be minions or all have to be regular soldiers? You probably already know this, but the point of 4E encounter design is to include more monsters per encounter, and make those monsters of varying types, so why shoehorn all of them into one role or the other? There are several ways to setup this encounter with minion rules that can not only add to the experience, but alter it in drastically different ways.

If the Dwarves aren't meant to be real contenders, than you can make them all minions and task the PCs with defending them from a smaller group non-minion goblins.

Or, you could choose to make a few select Goblin/Dwarf NPCs 'leaders' of their particular bands, giving them regular monster stats while the rest fall into the domain of minions. In this situation, perhaps the death of the Goblin leaders could force their sizable minion force to retreat, while if the Dwarf leaders go down, the remaining Dwarf minions break ranks, giving the Goblins an advantage.

Another 'mix' situation is to place one or two powerful Goblins among a large number of minions, but instead of leaders, they continually strike at the Dwarf/PC group's flanks before once again hiding themselves among their more mundane brethren.

With aid of the normal NPC Dwarves, perhaps you could even make the PCs go up against a massive warband of Goblins, making them all minions or giving them just one, regular enemy leader. This would have them lining up alongside the Dwarves in a formation to whether a literal flood of Goblins that throw themselves at the defenders.

And that's just four of the top of my head. I could easily write 4 more without even having to put much conscious thought to it. Minions are supposed to be the guys that aren't trained as well, and don't have that strong sense of self that their stronger brothers have. Peasants turned warriors, goblin runts, orcs that never quite recovered from some old war injury; these are what minions are meant to represent. Going down from one hit can make a lot of sense from an rp perspective, and in terms of basic combat, I can't see how they fail to add anything to an encounter.

And please don't ignore this post; I'm not patronizing you, I'm just trying to find out if you've misunderstood something or if you have an entirely different complaint than the one I've assumed you to be making. I'm honestly asking you: given the above, what's wrong with minions?