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).