D&D 4E What place does dual wielding have in 4E?

Judging from some of the monster statblocks, I'd agree it'll probably be handled as a basic exploit, eg

Dual Strike Attack, at will, make an attack with each weapon.

Super Dual Strike Drizzit Clone Avenger, Daily, make two attacks, 2x(W) +Bananna, each hand.

Since you can't combine two-weapon fighting with Tide of Iron or Brutal Strike or any kind of non-two weapon exploit, there's no real balance issue.

Would also explain tying dual weilding to the Ranger class. Otherwise you'd have to write up a bunch of two weapon powers for each class, which would be redudant.
 
Last edited:

log in or register to remove this ad

I personally would like to see TWF resulting in increased accuracy, as opposed to increased defense with sword + board, or increased damage with two-handers. Probably a little more damage than the guy with the shield, but I don't think TWF should result purely in more damage.

That said, the ranger (who is a striker) using two weapons to deal out twice the hurt I wouldn't mind seeing. Could be the striker mirror of the defender with a two-handed weapon - a ranger with a claymore doesn't really fit in my mind. But maybe that's just me.

Also, since sneak attack can only be applied once per round according to the Ampersand preview, dual-wielding rogues wouldn't be so broken anymore either.
 

Baka no Hentai said:
I actually wonder about this, as everything I have seen on Rangers so far seems to point to them being the "consummate archer", so I wouldn't be surprised if Rangers had little in the way of melee abilities.
One of the designer's playtest diaries features a melee build ranger. The only ranged weapon he's used has been a sling, and using it was such an unusual event that the designer pointed it out as a break of pace. So melee rangers are certainly possible.

As for two weapon fighting in general- at first I thought it was going to be pretty popular, because a great many pieces of 4e concept art feature two weapon fighting characters. But I'm starting to doubt it. The "power" system, much like the Tome of Battle maneuver system, seems very unsuited for two weapon fighting.
 

I'd like to see dual weilding go the way of the do-do. Or at least make it a flavor thing instead of crunch. Just my personal bias based on past and current gaming experience.
 

Yonner said:
Dual wielding, I think, will be accomplised through exploits. If you want to dual wield, pick up a dual wielding power. Dual strike, melee weapon standard action, at will.
That would be the best solution, IMO.
 


Wycen said:
I'd like to see dual weilding go the way of the do-do. Or at least make it a flavor thing instead of crunch. Just my personal bias based on past and current gaming experience.
I still have the Dragon Magazine with the "Be a two-fisted fighter" article. Sigh. Those were the days: so young, so innocent.
 

no, it should be easily balancable with at will/encounter powers. But i would assume you can´t use every weapon for all maneuvers. And with unified attack/defense values, an atatck penalty should be balanced at all levels...
 

Wycen said:
I'd like to see dual weilding go the way of the do-do. Or at least make it a flavor thing instead of crunch. Just my personal bias based on past and current gaming experience.

I half agree with this because nothing sucks worst than waiting twenty minutes for one guy to handle his full-rounder. But 2WF ain't all bad, it just needs reworked like much of everything.
 

I was hoping that they'd remove the idea of "dual wielding gives more attacks", 'cuz it's... kinda silly. But that doesn't seem to be the case based on monsters stats we've seen.

However, I do suspect they'll limit it to one extra attack. In 3e dual-wielding had to keep adding more and more attacks, because giving just one extra attack would get less and less valuable as iterative attacks pile on. In 4e you don't automatically get extra attacks as you level up, so dual-wielding can just give one extra attack at every level and still be ok.
 

Remove ads

Top