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

[malcolm_n]

Easier seems to be key in 4th edition...

Off-hand Strike
Ranger Attack 1
Martial At-will, weapon, Dual-wield
Move Action
Requirements: a weapon in each hand
Target: 1 creature
Attack: Str vs. AC
Hit: 1[W] + Str

Simple, and elegant. You have two weapons, give up your move to use them both. It's equivalent to a basic attack and you could still use your standard action. Since movement is so important now, it's a decent trade.

Alternatively:
Two Weapon Strike
Ranger Attack 1
Martial At-will, Weapon, Dual-wield
Standard Action
Target: 1 creature
Attack: Str vs. AC
Hit: 1[W] + Str and make a secondary attack.
Miss: Make a secondary attack.
Secondary target: 1 creature
Attack: Str vs. AC
Hit: 1[W] + Str

Clunkier, but not impossible. this one still allows movement though and pushes boundary on the Economy of Actions.

 

[Lord Sessadore]

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.

That's what I intended. I know that when attacking with two weapons you'll be less accurate with each weapon, but your opponent has two attacks to block or dodge. I think this would be a good way to differentiate these three fighting styles. Of course, that's just my opinion.

I kinda would like to see a 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.

This, though, would also be cool. Closer to modeling the kind of style my increased accuracy idea represents, and lets two distinct weapons have different impacts on the combat.

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.

I also like this idea.

I guess when it comes down to it, I'm pretty easy to please when it comes to TWF, I just don't like the 3.x implementation very much. In my opinion, if you're trained in two weapon fighting, you should have better chances to hit than a sword + board fighter, not the other way around. Key point being that you're trained in two weapon fighting - I'm fine with some shmuck who thinks he's all that trying to fight with two weapons and not being able to hit the broad side of a barn.

 

[Baka no Hentai]

Off-hand Strike
Ranger Attack 1
Martial At-will, weapon, Dual-wield
Move Action
Requirements: a weapon in each hand
Target: 1 creature
Attack: Str vs. AC
Hit: 1[W] + Str

I dont think that I could have come up with a more simple solution to allowing two weapon fighting, though it seems like such an obvious fix now that I have read it! (Though I do object to limiting it only to a ranger power)

I love a lot of the suggestions made in this thread, keep them coming!

 

[malcolm_n]

(Though I do object to limiting it only to a ranger power)

remember that other classes can gain it through a feat (we assume): Ranger training.

 

[Plane Sailing]

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.

An interesting alternative would be that on an unsuccessful direct attack with your primary hand you're allowed to roll a basic attack with your off-hand weapon against the same target.

EDIT: I see Frank has already expressed the same idea

 

[Lord Sessadore]

Off-hand Strike
Ranger Attack 1
Martial At-will, weapon, Dual-wield
Move Action
Requirements: a weapon in each hand
Target: 1 creature
Attack: Str vs. AC
Hit: 1[W] + Str

The one problem I see with this is going against the "move actions are only for moves" thing. It basically encourages the same style as 3.x did: get up to your target of choice and stand there beating on him til he's dead. Granted, it won't have the same lag as high level full attacks did in 3.x, but the way 4e is designed I'd be surprised if you ever got to use this power often - you can't shift (5 ft step) without a move action, and it sounds like everyone is going to be moving around a lot. Unless you start your turn adjacent to an enemy, you cannot use this power in 4e.

I like the concept behind it, I'm just not sure it would actually ever be used, and I don't think it aligns with what they want 4e to look like. The ranger is a striker, they shouldn't be standing in one spot to hammer on people, they should be darting around the battlefield.

 

[Diamondeye]

The problem with 2 weapon fighting in 3.5 that needs to be addressed is that, compared to 2-hander and weapon-shield styles it is ridiculously feat/dexterity intensive. It's treated like a "special" style of fighting. While I can see how realism might dictate that it's harder to learn, it should not be THAT hard to require all those feats.

The dexterity requirement is even worse. You have to get 19 dexterity to get all the feats, which really means 20 since you're going to go for that extra point. If you're a heavily armored type you can't then get the benefit of all that dexterity.

Ranger ignore the dexterity requirement... but they are lightly armored anyhow, and need dexterity for archery even if they focus on melee, since it's their usual secondary role, which defeats the whole purpose.

Worse, this dexterity-orientation tends to force people to take weapon finesse (another feat) and light weapons to get more out of their dexterity, and that limits options for the character even further.

In my campaign I've made weapon finesse automatic for light weapons; the feat allows you to use dexterity on one-handed swords, such as scimitars, longswords, and the like. There are no Two weapon defense feats; you get +1 AC with each level of TWF you take.

The dexterity minimums are reduced to 10, 12, 14 respectively.

This is problematic because a character should not have to spend all his feats just being able to use his fighting style, especially when it's no more effective than another style (2-hander)

What needs to happen in 4e is that it needs to have 3 well-balanced styles (shield, 2 weapon, 2 hander) for melee-heavy characters. In my opinion shield should emphasize defense, 2-hander offense, and two-weapon a balance of them.

2E had this initially, but then two-weapon got ridiculous, and I think as a result 3E was written scared of it; this is something 4E needs to remedy.. without making it into a "Ranger thing". There's nothing wrong with Rangers having it, but you shouldn't have to be a Ranger to do it.

 

[tombowings]

2E had this initially, but then two-weapon got ridiculous, and I think as a result 3E was written scared of it; this is something 4E needs to remedy.. without making it into a "Ranger thing". There's nothing wrong with Rangers having it, but you shouldn't have to be a Ranger to do it.

Everyone will have access to duel wielding. However, rangers may have an option to get it for free.

 

[Mentat55]

The one problem I see with this is going against the "move actions are only for moves" thing. It basically encourages the same style as 3.x did: get up to your target of choice and stand there beating on him til he's dead. Granted, it won't have the same lag as high level full attacks did in 3.x, but the way 4e is designed I'd be surprised if you ever got to use this power often - you can't shift (5 ft step) without a move action, and it sounds like everyone is going to be moving around a lot. Unless you start your turn adjacent to an enemy, you cannot use this power in 4e.

I like the concept behind it, I'm just not sure it would actually ever be used, and I don't think it aligns with what they want 4e to look like. The ranger is a striker, they shouldn't be standing in one spot to hammer on people, they should be darting around the battlefield.

What if attacking with the off-hand weapon was a minor action, instead of a move action? This may seem a bit too good, but minor actions are used for many things in 4E, it seems, and could balance the increased damage output provided by the 2nd attack, compared to other at-will powers.

 

[Starbuck_II]

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)

Than your in luck: the Pregen Fighter had Tide of Iron. A 1/2 elf can have others powers as choices. So a 1/2 Pally could be a decent sword/board.