TWF+Rogue Weapon Talent

[calypso15]

So, I'll repost an email sent to my GM, regarding whether wielding a dagger in the off hand gives a rogue +1 to attack using the mainhand. As the player in question, the logic is focused toward supporting my own position.

---------

So I'll make my case for why it should work the way I thought it did:

1) Melee Attacks: "Simply wielding a weapon in each hand doesn't allow
you to make two attacks in a round. If you hold two melee weapons, you
can use either one to make a melee attack.", Page 270. This implies
that you may wield two weapons at once, though doing so confers no
default mechanical bonus.

2) Two-Weapon Fighting: "While holding a melee weapon in each hand,
you gain a +1 bonus to damage rolls with your main weapon.", Page 201.
This implies that if you are holding a weapon in each hand (one of
which has to have the 'offhand' keyword, though that is stated
elsewhere), you deal +1 damage with the weapon that you use to attack
("main weapon").

3) Rogue Weapon Talent: "When you wield a dagger, you gain a +1 bonus
to attack rolls.", Page 117. Notice that it does not say "When you
attack with a dagger". Compare this to the wording of, for example,
the Nimble Blade feat: "When you attack with a light blade and you
have combat advantage, you gain a +1 bonus to attack rolls.", Page
199.

--------

#2 isn't particularly relevant. So, thoughts on the matter? I didn't see anything in the errata.

 

[Nifft]

Would your interpretation grant a +1 bonus to attack rolls made using an Implement-keyword power, if a Rogue somehow got one?

I think it does, and I think you're looking at the rules wrong.

Cheers, -- N

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I think it all comes down to the interpretation of "wield". The dagger rule is either intended to encourage this or badly worded. I actually think it's intended to encourage it myself, as it makes TWF with a Rapier in one hand and a Dagger in the other (very Rogue-ish) very sensible.

 

[JDillard]

The wording is not concrete in either direction, which means, it's up to your DM to make a judgement call.

Personally, I would say "no". I don't think a rogue should get a bonus to the weapon he's using simply because he's got a dagger in his other hand. Others (like Ruin Explorer above) feel otherwise.

Really, it's up to the you and the DM to work it out.

 

[Obryn]

Didn't the FAQ specifically address this?

-O

 

[calypso15]

Didn't the FAQ specifically address this?

Sort of. (I didn't even know there was a FAQ until just now).

Rogue weapon talent requires you to “wield” a particular weapon. What does this mean?

Wielding means you must be using that weapon in the attack. Merely holding it while you attack with another weapon isn’t enough to qualify for any bonuses that result.

So yeah, I think RAW (+FAQ) implies that you wouldn't get the +1 to attack rolls with your rapier. However, if we start talking about intent, doesn't Two-Weapon Fighting imply that you are attacking with both weapons? Isn't that why you get +1 damage?

 

[Nifft]

doesn't Two-Weapon Fighting imply that you are attacking with both weapons? Isn't that why you get +1 damage?

No.

It doesn't say why you get the +1 bonus to damage. You're free to create your own reason ("flavor"), but you're not free to use what you just made up to give yourself more mechanical benefits.

Cheers, -- N

 

[Stalker0]

I think it all comes down to the interpretation of "wield". The dagger rule is either intended to encourage this or badly worded. I actually think it's intended to encourage it myself, as it makes TWF with a Rapier in one hand and a Dagger in the other (very Rogue-ish) very sensible.

By sensible you mean automatic?

+1 to attack rolls are exceptionally rare in 4e, with this interpretation there's no rogue that shouldn't have a dagger in his off hand.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

By sensible you mean automatic?

+1 to attack rolls are exceptionally rare in 4e, with this interpretation there's no rogue that shouldn't have a dagger in his off hand.

Seems fine to me. He's a rogue, after all. Note that personally I'd tend to rule that you aren't "wielding" it unless it's affecting your attack. Therefore you'd have to have TWF to be "wielding" it if you weren't attacking with it. Probably getting into "house rules" territory there, though.

 

[calypso15]

Seems fine to me. He's a rogue, after all. Note that personally I'd tend to rule that you aren't "wielding" it unless it's affecting your attack. Therefore you'd have to have TWF to be "wielding" it if you weren't attacking with it. Probably getting into "house rules" territory there, though.

That's my interpretation as well. I should point out that:

a) My GM already ruled on it, so my recent post was really more academic than practical.

and b) I agree that this is definitely getting into house rules territory. With the FAQ, the RAW are pretty clear. Thanks for the help.