Races and Classes, Two-Weapon Fighting?

[Stogoe]

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

Nothing official re: 4e, but they're gone from SWSE, so it's a good bet. Personally I'm glad they're gone - your secondary/tertiary attacks rarely hit and can bog down the pace of combat. Maneuvers should easily make up for any extra damage from your +5 iterative, and far more reliably, as well.

 

[sidonunspa]

Nothing official re: 4e, but they're gone from SWSE, so it's a good bet. Personally I'm glad they're gone - your secondary/tertiary attacks rarely hit and can bog down the pace of combat. Maneuvers should easily make up for any extra damage from your +5 iterative, and far more reliably, as well.

What is this I hear about secondary attacks being worthless? Sometimes I wonder if we were playing the same game...

But seriously.. They are not completely gone, just changed.. If it’s like SWSE you can take a feat to get two attacks a round at a -5 to all your attacks.

 

[Gloombunny]

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

No, Frostmarrow pretty much just made that up. They're taking away iterative attacks, but there will be other ways to gain multiple attacks. There was a playtest report where a ranger shot two arrows in one round, and they mentioned fighters who use swords getting abilities that allow extra attacks.

 

[Cadfan]

Honestly, it could just be an oversight.

Tome of Battle was filled with characters carrying bows or fighting with two weapons. Even though the character classes being depicted did not receive proficiency with ranged weapons, and often had very, very few maneuvers that were even compatible with two weapon fighting.

Two weapon fighting is hard to make rules for. Two handed fighting is for extra damage. Weapon and shield is for defense. Two weapon fighting is for... extra damage again, except different? The fact that its competing directly with another type of combat that performs the same task creates a problem- either THF or TWF is going to be better.

I can think of two ways to make it work. 1) Attack bonus. Makes sense for rogue like types- you can't dodge both knives at once, that kind of thing. 2) Versatility. If your weapons have different special abilities, you might want one of each. Lets say that a hammer in the hands of a fighter can stun an enemy, but a sword is more damaging. You might want to stun your foe, then stab him.

 

[Dausuul]

When you think about it, it makes a lot of sense that TWF would be given to rangers rather than fighters. Previous editions tried to shoehorn all possible fighting styles into the fighter class. In 4E, the fighter's approach is much more specific; the fighter is a Defender, a "tank" combatant in heavy armor, made to stand in the front line and get whaled on. The ranger, on the other hand, is a Striker, a light and agile combatant specializing in offensive maneuvers, who's not so strong defensively. Of the two, the ranger's approach is far better suited to TWF.

Nowhere has it been said or implied that there will not be TWF in 4th Edition--only that it's not one of the primary options for the fighter class. Presumably if you want to be a TWF fighter, you do the equivalent of dipping ranger (Ranger Training feat).

 

[Mercule]

I am no martial artist, but isn't in rl TWF.... hard to pull out, and finaly a bit overrated?

I used to spar with wooden swords a lot -- no training, just playing, but it's still some experience and I've been told several times, even by trained martial artists that I have great instincts for fighting. My preferred weapon would be equivalent to a bastard sword, but I've done longsword and dagger, too. I'm not truly ambidextrous, but I seem to be more even than most people. IME, the differences are this:

1) Better radius of control. In 3e terms, you'd be harder to flank because you can effectively deal with something in a broader area.

2) This also translates to a better defense. I could defend against more opponents and be more effective in doing so with an off-hand weapon. I'd give a defense bonus to a TWF character.

3) On the flip side, I didn't actually get too many more opportunities to attack because the off-hand was usually used to guard. If I used my left hand to attack, it was a distraction that weakened both hands. The attack penalties in 3E seemed pretty reasonable. I actually stopped trying to do TWF because I didn't feel I had the control I needed to avoid actually hurting my partners.

4) Less damage. I could never get myself braced for a good attack when I was using two weapons. In D&D terms, that might just be the matter of not getting the 1.5 multiplier for strength (I had a 300 lb bench in high school and college) and a two-hander. Regardless, it always seemed pretty significant.

My general feeling is that, if I needed to hold off multiple attackers, I'd use TWF -- especially if I thought they'd tire quickly or help was on the way. If I needed to deal with one or two foes, I'd prefer to have a single, larger weapon that would let me make better use of my size.

 

[glass]

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

No, iterative attacks are gone, but we know from a number of ways to get multiple attacks. One of the earliest nuggets of info was something about longsword-wielding fighter getting powers that allow extra attacks.


glass.

 

[NewfieDave]

It never made sense to me that Two-Weapon Fighters automatically get extra attacks per round. How does holding a weapon in each hand increase the speed of your attacks? Attack speed should only be related to the skill of the combatant, not the fighting style involved.

I would like to see Two-Weapon Fighting covered by maneuvers. A Rogue getting a follow-up attack with his off-hand after sneak attacking something makes sense, or a Ranger opening himself up to perform a "Scissors" type maneuver with his two blades. Aside from the flashy stuff, Two-Weapon Fighters should only get one attack per round. Just give them cool per-encounter abilities that let them show off their fighting style choice.

 

[Zaruthustran]

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.

Not that real life matters overmuch to a game, but IRL one of the main advantages of TWF is that you can boost your attack *or* your defence. You can use that dagger to parry an incoming attack, or you can reach out and tap aside your opponent's defending weapon in order to open a channel for your attacking hand. Or you can lock your main weapon with your opponent's weapon, close, and girk the other guy with a dagger thrust.

Good fun! Man, I can't wait for tournament season to start again...

Anyway, it seems like the most "common sense" solution for TWF that sticks to the proposed "reduce # of attacks" paradigm is to allow TWF to add +1 to either attack rolls or AC, at your option each round. The +1 to AC is not as good as the +2 from a big shield, but then again the shield can't be used to give an attack bonus. And then there's the advantage of having a light weapon already in hand (for cases of grappled and swallowed whole, or when you need to make a ranged attack but can't spare a Move action to draw). The other advantage is that when you make the attack, you can choose which weapon is the weapon that actually delivers the blow. So if you dual wield a flaming sword and a ghost touch dagger, you can choose which one hits and which one grants the bonus to AC or attack.

Seems reasonable.

TWF should not grant an extra attack. That's not what TWF is for. Even if you swing both weapons at the exact same time, that's only to try to get the opponent to choose between blocking one or the other. To me, that's equivalent to the +1 to attack.

 

[Commonblade]

Based on what I have seen I am guessing rogues use it for follow-up attacks. And the possibility exist that the fighters that are using it are "cross-classing" or picking up Rogue Training to be able to deliver follow-up attacks.

I could also see fighters using two weapons as a "Sword and Board" Option. Primarily using the second weapon to parry/block and executing a "Shield bash" when the opportunity or "combat advantage" occurred. The off hand weapon would not have the defensive bonuses that a shield has but it could have a better "Shield bash." (Trade a little defense for a little offense)

I could also see fighters using it as a "two-handed" style that focused on a to-hit bonus instead of higher damage bonus of a single two-handed blade. (Trade a little damage for a little to-hit)

Just some possibilities.