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

[Belorin]

The dual wielding ranger is an iconic class for me, I have a 16th level ranger the I've been playing since before RAS put pen to paper for Drizzt. He wields a long sword and a short sword. He is semi-retired and mainly takes care of his keep and the surrounding forest with his wolf and hawk companions. He will be getting a 4E makover as an NPC, that way he can keep his Treant and Firbolg allies.

Is it me or do the classes seem to be leaning toward a multiple build option? Rogues, fighters,
warlocks, wizards and maybe rangers all have some choice. Warlocks have pacts, wizards their implements, rogues choose between brawny and trickster and fighters pick either weapon & shield or two handed weapons.
Maybe all classes have such a choice, although I am having a hard time figuring out what the warlord, cleric and paladin builds would be.


Bel

 

[FadedC]

Maybe you will only add your strength or dex bonus once. It could be something like W1+W2+dex/strength for damage or just two attacks but only add your stat to the first that hits.

That would help keep it from overpowering 2-handers too badly. Course we don't even really know how 2-handers work in 4e because no playtest chars were using one.

 

[Mad Mac]

although I am having a hard time figuring out what the warlord, cleric and paladin builds would be.

You got me on the Paladin and the Warlord. I'm betting the Cleric can choose between being more of a "Caster" Cleric or a martial one, though. I notice with the playtest Cleric that his high wisdom is optimized for healing and ranged damage, but his buffing would probably be much more effective if he had chosen to pump Charisma instead.

 

[Incenjucar]

You could easily just have it work as a follow up.

With a successful direct attack with your primary hand, you're allowed to roll a normal attack with your off-hand weapon against the same target, with no additional effects, once a round. So more or less a backstab with possible magical weapon bonuses, that's based on an attack roll rather than having combat advantage.

 

[Jim DelRosso]

R&C also had some art in which rogues were dual-wielding, so maybe we'll see some exploits for them as well.

Passive aspects of dual-wielding, such as increased AC, could be modeled by a feat.

 

[Falling Icicle]

Maybe all classes have such a choice, although I am having a hard time figuring out what the warlord, cleric and paladin builds would be.

I think the Cleric and Paladin builds will have alot to do with their choice of patron deity. It could be as general as good vs evil, but that would leave a bad taste in my mouth. The variety of gods and religions in D&D don't always dwell on that distinction. More specific religious options could be presented in future books, though.

 

[HeinorNY]

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.

I agree, but there would be a problem. Anyone can wield a weapon in each hand and attack with them, so we need rules for that.

 

[Cam Banks]

I'm kind of hoping they continue not to call it "dual wielding."

Cheers,
Cam

 

[Aust Diamondew]

I agree, but there would be a problem. Anyone can wield a weapon in each hand and attack with them, so we need rules for that.

I think a simple +1 to attack rolls, or the like, would be the best route.

 

[ForbidenMaster]

I like how they had it in 3.5 because it all came out very simple:

If you were two handed you got a bonus to attack and damage but gave up an AC bonus.

If you used a shield then you got an AC bonus but gave up an attack and damage bonus.

If you duel wielded then you gave up both the AC bonus and the bonus to attack and damage, but gained a higher probability to hit (even with the -2/-5/-10 for balance).

 

[Amphimir Míriel]

I like how they had it in 3.5 because it all came out very simple:

If you were two handed you got a bonus to attack and damage but gave up an AC bonus.

If you used a shield then you got an AC bonus but gave up an attack and damage bonus.

If you duel wielded then you gave up both the AC bonus and the bonus to attack and damage, but gained a higher probability to hit (even with the -2/-5/-10 for balance).

The problem with that is that the bonuses to attack and damage by two-handed weapon users were far better than the AC bonus granted to Shield users or the extra attacks granted to dual wielders. (the 3.5 version of Power Attack was also a big part of that problem)

So in 3.5 everybody and his mom used a greatsword... It was, quite simply, the best tactical option for a melee character in core 3.5 D&D

This, of course, was a consequence of how dual-wielding was way too powerful on 2nd edition (Bladesinger with spells and dual longswords, Im looking at you!)

As Mearls pointed out on a thread about shields, fighting styles are tricky, because if you are not careful to balance it out perfectly, everybody picks the same choice...

And by God, I want to be able to play a Sword-and-Board Paladin and have some cool 300-style shield shoves, bashes and charges... And I also want to be able to play a cuisinart-style dual wielding ranger (call it a drizzt clone if you wish... I was also playing similar characters before I even heard of Salvatore)

 

[Baron Opal]

In SWSE if you dual wield melee weapons to take a penalty to hit for an extra die of damage. There is one attack roll. Take that as you will.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

I've played many many characters who wield two weapons over the years, and I am vaguely aware that Drzzt is some FR angsty-but-good drow ranger, but I honestly don't know anything about him.

Fitz

 

[RigaMortus2]

It probably works like, you make one attack roll at a penalty (-2 ?) and if you hit, you deal damage from each weapon. If you miss, you miss with both weapons. Basically all or nothing. Just my guess...

 

[BASHMAN]

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.

I agree!

Two-Weapon Feint-- m, Standard, At Will. Your foe reacts to your attack from your sword, leaving an opening for your dagger to slip through
When wielding a weapon in each hand, roll 2d20 for the attack roll, taking the better of the two. For the damage roll, use the worse of the two.

Two-Weapon Combo m, Standard, Encounter In a flurry of dizzying speed, you become a whirling pinwheel of death
When wielding a weapon in each hand, make a weapon attack for each (against a single opponent).

Double Parry Immediate Reaction; Encounter You catch your enemies weapon between your two blades, turning a deadly strike into a miss
As an immediate reaction to a melee attack, roll an attack roll. Use the result as your Defense against the melee attack.

Shears of Fate Standard; Daily You bring your crossed swordarms together with a sickening slash as they pass one another
Roll two standard attacks against one opponent. If one hits, it does [W] damage+2. If both hit, they each do 2[W] damage.

And some higher level stuff:

Double Riposte Immediate Reaction; Encounter You raise your blade to catch your enemies attack, and strike low with your other blade When you are attacked in melee, rolll an attack roll as an immediate reaction. Your attack roll becomes your defense against that attack. If this prevented you from being hit, you may make an attack on that enemy as a free action.

And even sicker:

Deadly Riposte Immediate Reaction; Encounter You raise your blade to catch your enemies attack, and watch his eyes go from wide when your other blade impales him. This works like Double Riposte, but if you succeed in defending yourself, you may attack the enemy with +2 to hit, and 2[W] damage. If this bloodies the foe, it is also stunned until it begins its next turn.

 

[LowSpine]

I would guess it is a martial exploit of some description that just allows an extra basic attack (they aren't that great in 4E) perhaps as a move action with tree exploits that add to that such as offhand parry which adds to AC/Reflex. Just guessing.

 

[JVisgaitis]

I like the straight up idea of a penalty to hit and double the damage with one roll. That's nice and simple. If they do something silly like make it a once per encounter ability, I'll lose my mind.

 

[Syrsuro]

Hmm..

I certainly had never thought of it that way before - but I like the increased accuracy approach (instead of the increased damage or extra attack).

That is one of the advantages of two weapons - it is two different attacks that must be guarded against, and thus the likelihood of one of them slipping through your defenses is greater.

Of course - in the long run two rolls versus an increased accuracy with one roll is going to have similar effects (more damage). But increased accuracy is going to be less swingy (one attack to hit or miss, versus a range of two misses to two hits - potentially two crits), it is easier to model, and it makes them more different than the two-hander and sword and board.

Essentially you end up with:

Dual Wielder: More accuracy, base damage, base defense.
Two-handed: Base accuracy, more damage, base defense.
Sword and Board: Base accuracy, base damage, more defense.

IMHO, if they didn't do it this way, they should have.

Carl

 

[JVisgaitis]

Also, I hope its keyed off of dexterity and doesn't give a strength bonus.

 

[Voss]

In SWSE if you dual wield melee weapons to take a penalty to hit for an extra die of damage. There is one attack roll. Take that as you will.

No it isn't. Raid shot (and a melee version) work like that. Dual wield is separate attack rolls for an additional attack, with feats that slowly negate the penalty.