Races and Classes, Two-Weapon Fighting?

[Gloombunny]

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.

I like this idea a lot.

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.

So agreed. The "TWF = extra attacks" thing always makes me envision some guy just flailing away wildly with both swords held out in front of him. That sort of approach may work well in sissy slap-fighting, but it's not a great idea in a swordfight.

With fighters as defenders, I have no problem with TWF not being amongst their schtick.

I do! TWF is not at all inappropriate for a defender. In some ways it makes more sense for a defender than a striker!

 

[Stalker0]

I also like the idea that TWF gives you a +1 to attack OR to AC, and you can change it each round. The other styles give you power, this gives you flexibility. I really like that!!

My hope first of all is that TWF does not work like in SAGA. From what I've heard, twf is horrendously weak in that game for a very good reason. In order to use it, you have to get a full attack in, and with the increase in mobility for the game most enemies don't stick around for you to get those extra attacks.

My guess is that there will be powers that enhance TWF. Further, we've heard that there are "weapon abilities" now that depend on your weapon. The example was given about a sword that got an extra attack, or an axe that did extra damage on a crit. These might be 1/encounter abilities, but using TWF might allow you to use it twice, or to use two abilities because you have 2 weapons.

 

[DamnedChoir]

I think alot of people are forgetting Dual Mace (Chinese), Dual Axe (Norse), and Dual Sword (Saracens) as viable dual weapon fighting styles that aren't all about fencing and swift, light attacks.

I can much more see a Rogue or Ranger wielding light weapons to deal fast attacks, while I see a Fighter using two Axes, to knock an opponent off guard, disarm them, and take off their head. It's powerful, brutal, and swift.

I'd like Fighters to still be able to use TWF, but just differently from Strikers.

 

[FireLance]

I've just thought of one way that two-weapon fighting could be implemented for fighters in 4e. It could be the style that bridges the defensive (sword-and-board) and offensive (two-handed weapon) fighting styles. Essentially, if you select the Two-Weapon Fighting feat (or whatever), you can choose to wield your off-hand weapon defensively and treat it as a shield for your defensive maneuvers, or you could choose to wield both weapons offensively to use the two-handed weapon fighting style maneuvers. For the purposes of Strength bonus to damage, feats, powers, etc. a two-weapon fighter is treated as if he was wielding a one-handed weapon or a two-handed weapon depending on whether he is using his off-hand weapon defensively or offensively that round. Two-weapon fighting would be thus be most useful for a fighter that has selected a good mix of offensive and defensive powers and wants the flexibility to switch between them at a moment's notice.

 

[Khaalis]

The impression I get from Races & Classes is that Fighters will be able to fight with two weapons, but it is not the style at which they excel. Remember, 4X is more about not saying you "can't" do something, but more about saying "you can do it, but not as well as the person who's specialty this is." They specifically state that rogues are the light fighter / duelist style martial character class, however their is art depicting both fighters and rogues dual wielding. I think that TWF will basically be a lot like shields for example, where they specifically state that someone like the cleric can wield a shield and gain benefit from it, but only the fighter will get a series of specialized abilities for the shield. TWF will likely be the same. Others can TWF but only the rogue gains specialty powers in that style. JMHO.

 

[ogre]

I think the 'options' approach is what we'll see in 4e. It makes both in-game and rl sense.
The TW fighting should be more about options rather than more attacks. So, those of you who proposed the +1 variable bonus are right on in my book. I'd even go as far to say choose a +1 to hit, +1 damage or +1 AC depending on how you are fighting with the 2 weapons, cuz they all make sense.
Now, if they make shields more realistic (meaning a better defense value) we may see something more drastic, like a variable +2 to any of the 3 options, or something tied to the weilders Dex mod.

 

[ZombieRoboNinja]

The impression I get from Races & Classes is that Fighters will be able to fight with two weapons, but it is not the style at which they excel. Remember, 4X is more about not saying you "can't" do something, but more about saying "you can do it, but not as well as the person who's specialty this is." They specifically state that rogues are the light fighter / duelist style martial character class, however their is art depicting both fighters and rogues dual wielding. I think that TWF will basically be a lot like shields for example, where they specifically state that someone like the cleric can wield a shield and gain benefit from it, but only the fighter will get a series of specialized abilities for the shield. TWF will likely be the same. Others can TWF but only the rogue gains specialty powers in that style. JMHO.

I think my best-case scenario for TWF fighters at this point is that they can take one or two Rogue or Ranger Training feats to dual-wield and get significant combat benefits from it (to rival sword and shield or two-hander). And that there will be a specific talent tree for rapiers (or daggers or scimitars) that emphasizes finesse, so it makes sense for a dual-wielder to put some serious levels into Fighter.

But I still imagine the typical swashbuckler would not be a single-class fighter. They're really more mobile and precise, like rogues, I'd think - and if rogues can get lots of Feint-style abilities (which I bet they can), their "sneak attacks" would make roleplaying sense for a swashbuckler.

 

[scruffygrognard]

Nope.

And that isn't the least of 3.5's sins.

Actually, 1 feat would take care of that for a fighter... the aptly named Two-Weapon Fighting feat.

 

[mmu1]

I'm fully confident that they'll screw TWF up - simply because the odds are against them. Most systems in which characters normally get only one attack per round either make TWF extremely powerful, or overcompensate and make it useless. Generally, if they allow TWF to make a second normal attack, TWF ends up being overpowered, and when they simply restrict it to give a bonus of some sort, it ends up being not worth it.

3.5 actually had a pretty good middle ground that most systems aren't able to reach, precisely because everyone eventually gained multiple attacks. At low levels, the -2 to hit was large enough to matter, at higher ones, iterative attacks helped to close the gap. TWF was reletively cheap to get but not especially powerful, and provided enough of a benefit to certain character types that it was useful without being either overpowered or a purely stylistic choice.

That's not to say that 3.5 TWF couldn't be broken, or that it's impossible for the 4E designers to get it right, but the changes they're making to the system make it a lot harder. SWSE is a good example of this - there, the multiple-attack feat path isn't remotely balanced against the TWF one. The former always imposes massive penalties for 2 or 3 attacks (-5 and -10) rendering multiple attacks virtually useless, while the latter quickly lets you attack twice at -2 and eventually at no penalty at all.

 

[JohnSnow]

The impression which I get of Florentine fighting (renaissance sword and dagger) was that although you would normally use your dagger for parrying, and indeed it often had extra stuff to help it with sword catching, a particularly good use was when you and your opponents bound your primary weapons together you had something handy to gut him with in your spare hand.

I could easily see TWF being used to give a damage bonus or an attack bonus.

Yes and no. IME, you're largely correct, but I'd like to add a few points for clarification.

By way of fuil disclosure, I trained in eastern martial arts for over a decade and have trained in renaissance martial arts (especially swordfighting) for the past 6 years. That includes, but is not limited to: single rapier/sidesword; single backsword; rapier/sidesword & dagger or buckler; backsword & buckler; quarterstaff; and italian longsword (hand-and-a-half).

The bulk of my two-handed experience is rapier/sidesword & dagger or rapier/sidesword & buckler. A typical fight goes like this after Fighter A attacks. Either:

B parries with dagger and counters with sword.
B parries with sword, deflects with dagger, and counters with sword.
B parries with sword & dagger, then counterattacks or evades.

Using a buckler is pretty similar, except that it's easier to counter-attack with a dagger than it is with a buckler.

Basically, two-weapon fighting with a light weapon (or buckler) in your offhand is mostly helpful defensively, but it can assist your offense by pulling your opponents defenses "off line." Basically, it's a way of creating a feint. It sounds to me much more like a good technique for cunning rangers and rogues than for more traditional fighters.

I would put forward the notion that a "swashbuckler" is probably closer to a fighter with rogue training (or vice versa) than to a straight fighter. Couple that with the claim that the rogue and the ranger "ganged up on the swashbuckler and split his stuff," I think we'll see two-weapon fighting as a key power for rogues and rangers.

However, fighting with two regular-sized weapons (case of rapiers, paired swords, paired hammers) is really difficult. It's clumsy and awkward. Two friends of mine with roughly equal skill were sparring. The slightly better was using case of rapiers, whereas his opponent was using rapier and dagger. By traditional standards, the former should have had the edge, but the latter one. How? His opponent got tied up trying to effectively use both blades. That means that while two-weapon fighting can be very effective, trying to use two large weapons should counteract that penalty. I wouldn't want to go up against a trained two-weapon fighter with a single blade though - even if they weren't used to the paired swords.

On the other hand, heroes can learn things that are difficult for normal people. Of course, it should probably fall into the category of powers.