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

[HP Dreadnought]

Some decent ideas in this thread. . . but I don't think that's the route they are going to go.

Based on what we've seen so far, my prediction is that 2WF will grant an additional attack that may be used as part of an at-will power. Therefore, you won't be able to combine it with the use of a lot of other powers.

Either at high levels or in later supplements, powers/feats will be available that let you do something else cool at the same time as you attack with your two weapons.

 

[JVisgaitis]

Hmm..

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

I disagree. Using two weapons isn't more accurate. The potential for more damage is there, but it should be harder to hit and not let you do strength damage for the base version. I also hope they eliminate additional rolls so it goes quicker.

 

[Samothrake]

In response to some opinions earlier in the thread...

It does appear that most/all of the classes appear to be going the way of multiple builds. What we have seen seems to indicate that each class will have two major build types.
If this is the case, however, why is the wizard the only one who gets three choices (wand, staff, orb)?
It could be, as some have theorized, that what we have seen of classes like the rogue are not complete. (I KNOW that one is not complete. Too much has been left out. Why a Strength build and a Charisma build, but not a Dexterity build?) My personal theory is that the Martial Powers book will include more builds for Fighters, Barbarians, Rogues, and whatever other Martial characters there are. They are just saving some of the goodies that we want for future products. Gotta keep the money coming in somehow...

 

[Cactot]

I disagree. Using two weapons isn't more accurate. The potential for more damage is there, but it should be harder to hit and not let you do strength damage for the base version. I also hope they eliminate additional rolls so it goes quicker.

depends on your definition of "more accurate", harder to defend against for sure, though the precision would be lower for anyone who is not completely ambidextrous the overall effect of increasing accuracy is probably the same. Though if we were going for a strictly simulationist ideal then heavy or high moment of inertia weapons of all sorts would suffer significant accuracy penalties (especially polearms, greataxes, etc) and damage bonuses

Inertia weapons have much higher potential damage but are far harder to adjust mid-swing or put right in the crease of some armor.

 

[Nahat Anoj]

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.

Good stuff.

I think the "basic" Two-Weapon Fighting feat or exploit will give you a little bit of extra damage if you hit an opponent, much like how Cleave lets you do a little bit of damage to an adjacent opponent.

 

[mneme]

If this is the case, however, why is the wizard the only one who gets three choices (wand, staff, orb)?

Alternatively, why is the wizard the one with -no- build types, instead only getting to pick a weapon. Note that the Fighter has two choices -- sword&board vs two hander and which specific weapon to work on to start with; what we've seen has the wizard only choosing a weapon. Plus, we already know that warlocks use Implements, just as Wizards do (which means -someone- is competing for the Wizard's toys -- good!), so that choice isn't limited to the wizard, though it may have a greater impact.

It could be, as some have theorized, that what we have seen of classes like the rogue are not complete. (I KNOW that one is not complete. Too much has been left out. Why a Strength build and a Charisma build, but not a Dexterity build?)

Er...because they're both Dexterity build. All rogues are primarily Dexterity characters, the basic rogue attacks are all based on Dex, as is most of their skill list -- Str vs Cha is a question of what their secondary stat will be.

I'm guessing that they will add more alternative builds over time, just as they did in 3.5.

Now, back to the topic, I'll note that on the Wizards site, there's an article about the Character creator with Tabatha being outfitted with two implements -- a wand in one hand and an orb in the other. Is this a hint that Warlocks (and by extension, wizards) get to dual-wield now?

I think it is. We already know more or less how the off-hand slot works -- you can put a shield in it (supplementary defense) or you can drop a bracer on it (some offensive ability). Well, why wouldn't secondary weapons also fit into that mold -- rather than wearing a bracer or a shield, you put a weapon in your second hand and it ups your offensive capability in some fashion that's numerically compatible with a bracer's offense or a shield's +2 to AC/Reflex. I'm guessing it's adding a damage die; it fits reasonably well and works with all classes, but I guess we'll just have to see.

 

[frankthedm]

I kinda would like to se ea follow up style where the character strikes with the off hand if the first attack misses.

Didn't see it coming, did ya? (At will)
After missing with a standard attack, one attack with an off hand weapon.

 

[HeinorNY]

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...

What If I'm wielding the +3 Flaming Sword in one hand, and the +2 Storm Pick of Disarming n the other?

I'm sorry for all the few-rolls-the-better design philosophy, but 2WF must allow two attacks.

I'm ok with the following rule: If you wield two weapons, you still can attack only once in your turn, with one weapon or the other. You can only use both weapons if you are trained in 2WF.
The principle for this rule is the same used for firearms. I could argue that If I'm wielding a pistol, I could pull the trigger very fast and gain multiple attacks. But I don't get them because... we all know why. The same could work for 4E dual wielding. You don't gain more attacks unless you have the "skillz". And in 4E the multiple attacks could come in the form of martial exploits.

 

[quindia]

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

I like that. I hope the dual wield is a general exploit and not tied to the Ranger. I didn't like the fact that Rangers were tied to bows or dual weapons with their free feats in 3.5. I understand the bow being iconic to the class, but I don't know why the other 50% of Rangers were ambidextrous. I don't think a Ranger should be a two weapon fighter any more often than a fighter or rogue.

 

[RigaMortus2]

What If I'm wielding the +3 Flaming Sword in one hand, and the +2 Storm Pick of Disarming n the other?

The better bonus applies.