Races and Classes, Two-Weapon Fighting?

[vagabundo]

Occam's razor tells us TWF won't grant +1 attack.

So what are the options:

- a bonus to your main attack
- Some sort of parry mechanic
- extra followup damage
- counterattack mechanic
- extra AC parrying bonus
- nullify some other unknown combat mechanic

Or a combo of a few of the above.

 

[Khaalis]

I don't think TWF will be as complicated as all that. I have a feeling it will be similar to True20 and SWSE in that the "iterative" attacks are gone and you normally have 1 attack in a round but TWF grants a second attack allowing you to deal extra damage. Both "attacks" suffer a penalty to hit (-5 in SWSE) though. This is basically a similar mechanic to Power Attack in that you take a penalty to attack to do more damage. Also, in SWSE you also have to have a +6 BAB to get TWF which I think is good. I don't think anyone should start as a novice (1st level) as a proficient dual wielder. I don't think this really slows the game down by rolling two dice instead of one to deal extra damage. However, they could also simply go with TWF grants extra damage on an attack but I think that is too oversimplified and doesn't allow for variation of TWF weapons such as the Dragonborn fighter in R&C wielding a Morning Star and Dagger.
JMHO.

 

[Talislan]

As others have mentioned TWF is no different to the old sword and board...except in style. Any weapon combat that involves two seperate 'weapons' or objects being wielded is more difficult than wielding only one object. For instance, an untrained individual would find it as difficult to be effective with sword and board as with two small-medium sized weapons.

The main difference comes when a combatant looks at concentration on defence or counter attacking. It is easier to defend with a sword(weapon) and shield, as blocking with a shield will often take less finess(yes that is a generalisation). The shield also acts as a psychological barrier to the opponent as a 'wall' they have to get past.
A second blade(weapon) however gives the combatant greater options (mainly due to speed) in counter attacking and in turn forces the opponent to take greater care as to where the next attack will be coming from. Thus psychologically putting them on the back foot or into a more defencive mindset.

Now, the above are what you might consider the polar ends of fighting with an object in each hand. In between you have all the variations of things like sword and axe, blade and buckler, sword and cloak, net and trident, Spear and shield (which I personally feel we don't see enough of) etc. All of which have distinct advantages and disadvantages in either defence or counter.

What really needs to happen is for some mechanic or ability system that can be expanded for all fighting styles. Certainly there should be no negative 'to hit' modification on TWF for a starting character any more than there should be on someone using sword and board. Rather a fighting style should come with distinct advantage/disadvantage in a particular type of combat (which can be improved/overcome with experience).

Bottom line is effectiveness with any combat style should be based on experience...with that style of fighting. The strength of a combat style is always in the wielder or combatants use of it, not the style itself.

Whether this can or will be portraid in 4E I am unable to guess at but would guess it would come in PHBII and only touched upon in the the core PHB. After all, we don't just RPG to kill things and take their stuff now do we.

 

[glass]

My prediction is that there'll be fairly robust TWF support in 4e, it's far too popular a fighting style not to cover. I can't see how they'd miss the opportunity of including a whole chain of TWF maneuvers for the fighter.

Whereas I don't think they'd miss the opportunity to differentiate fighters and rogues/ranger a little. Seriously, if fighters are the best at all kinds of fighting, what does that leave for the other martial classes?


glass.

 

[Plane Sailing]

As others have mentioned TWF is no different to the old sword and board...except in style. Any weapon combat that involves two seperate 'weapons' or objects being wielded is more difficult than wielding only one object. For instance, an untrained individual would find it as difficult to be effective with sword and board as with two small-medium sized weapons.

Surely you jest, sir!

I'm an untrained individual, but give me a honking big shield (or even an ordinary sized shield) any day over an off-hand weapon to defend myself with! Defending yourself with an off-hand weapon requires much more skill and co-ordination than just holding a shield on your arm which covers much of your torso.

Trained friends of mine have explained to me how *incredibly* difficult it can be to try to attack someone who is protected with a large shield.

There is a reason why shields have been so important to armies through the ages (and why they are so important to riot police nowadays). They are fantastically cost-effective defensive items. D&D has never given them the credit they are due, hopefully that will change in 4e.

 

[glass]

Under Rangers on P. 84 it says "Arrows fly from your bow as quickly as your blades flash..." which could be a hint. The elf ranger on that page has two weapons as well. But like you say there are a lot of pictures of dual-wielding rogues. Almost all of the them. Perhaps TWF is mainly a striker thing?

Didn't they explicitly say that TWF was going to be a Ranger/Rogue thing in 4e?


glass.

 

[Mr Jack]

The tricky thing about TWF that is tricky is the notion it grants +1 attack. In 4E the designers try to speed up the game by reducing #attacks to 1. If TWF is allowed from first level and it grants +1 attack all that work is moot.

Woah. What? They're making it so that characters only get one attack a round? All the time? Is that confirmed? If so, I think I've found my first thing to really dislike about 4th ed

 

[Talislan]

Surely you jest, sir!

I'm an untrained individual, but give me a honking big shield (or even an ordinary sized shield) any day over an off-hand weapon to defend myself with! Defending yourself with an off-hand weapon requires much more skill and co-ordination than just holding a shield on your arm which covers much of your torso.

No, I think maybe you missed my point. I do see what you mean with regards to your personal prefence although you've kind of just emphasised what I was saying. It's not easy to attack effectively while you're busy hiding behind the shield instead of using it to deflect and counter. So Yes, defensively stronger as I tried to make out, but at the price of the, possible, attacking advantages of twf.

Trained friends of mine have explained to me how *incredibly* difficult it can be to try to attack someone who is protected with a large shield.

And right they are too, hence the focus on defence in my discussion. But it doesn't make them easier too attack with compared to someone who isn't encumbered as much.

There is a reason why shields have been so important to armies through the ages (and why they are so important to riot police nowadays). They are fantastically cost-effective defensive items. D&D has never given them the credit they are due, hopefully that will change in 4e.

Again valid points. However trained armies used sword and shield in a very specific way. The spartans tailor made defending in one direction and attacking in another and this is why their phalanx was so effective. But what you are describing is unit combat, the creation of a shield wall etc. TWF in unit combat is only useful in skirmish units and situations where the combat breaks down into lots of mini solo battles.

In one-on-one encounters there is no distinct combat advantage on the different styles one over another though, as they are used in different ways. One is more defensive in the combat and the other more attacking in the combat. To say that it is harder to defend with two 'weapons' than with a shield is fair. To say that it is also easier to hide behind a sturdy shield is also fair. But to say it is harder to attack with two weapons than with a sword and shield is not. To say that a twf would not have a distinctive counter attack advantage due to speed/unrestricted movement, is sheer folly (IMHO).

The fact is the styles balance out in their nature though, and hence it is the experience of the user that defines its usefulness. This is the fact that any combat mechanic needs to get across. Skill tricks, feats and trained abilities in style use need to be balanced to the experience of the wielder not the style.

I would point out that I don't think twf should grant automatic extra attacks. The advantage comes in counter and attacks of opportunity, which would be more in abundance than in the fighting style of the man hiding behind the shield, not in general melee.

T.

 

[Li Shenron]

I think he meant viable as in effective. Which it wasn't particularly. Between the attack penalties, half strength modifier on the off-hand weapon, inability to power attack with a light weapon and all the feats you had to dump into, it was very much not viable when compared to a two handed weapon, or even sword and board.

Forget about PA, the 3.5 version is unbalanced between different fighting styles. The 3.0 version treats all fighting styles equally. Even in 3.5, 2WF has its own feats and special abilities (although not much in core) that such character should look for.

2WF has attack penalties (roughly 10% less chance), and that's the only net penalty.

The benefit is one extra attack per round, which means increased damage output per round (very slightly reduced by the lesser Str bonus on one attack only).

The main comparison should be made between one attack at full bonus vs 2 attacks at -2. (The 2nd regular attack could still be considered for comparison, but the 3rd and 4th attack are near-irrelevant because they already have a large penalty).

If the character has for example a 70% hit chance, and deals on average X damage on a hit (so 0.7X per round), now it will have 2 attacks with 60% chance each, and the average damage per round is slightly less than 1.2X per round (slightly less because of the half-Str). The increased damage could be very much worth 1-2 feats, it actually looks comparable with Greater Weapon Specialization. Even if you factor in the 2nd attack (chance lowered from 45% to 35%) the benefit is still very much "viable".

 

[Wormwood]

*shrug*

If shields grant an AC bonus and two-handed weapons grant a damage bonus, then having two weapons grant an attack bonus is nice and symmetrical.

But I'm about the gamism, not the simulationism (if I may be allowed a little GNS here).