| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So the topic of codifying rules and how they make things easier (or more difficult) for the game started me thinking on powers in general. And the one thing that has bothered me the most about 4E's mechanics is the lack of any viable Two-Weapon fighting style thats NOT in direct correlation to one of the 4 classes (or 2 races) that can instantly select that option. For those unaware of how it works, 4E's power structer is pretty narrow in it's focus, espically when it comes to weapon-based powers. In the case of two-weapon fighting, if you don't specifically have a power that allows you to attack with each weapon, you simply can't do it. Period. Now, this doens't prevent you for wielding two weapon, you can do that without penalty so long as your off-hand weapon has the Off-hand property. What you can't do, it use them both in 1 attack.
For barbarians, fighters, rangers, and scouts this isn't a problem becaus they have at-will abilities that allow them to obtain two-weapon attacks. The Half-Elf and Revenant (half-elf) can also obtain one of these classes powers to be used 1/encounter (and then later as a true at-will attack). But what about the elven Paladin who sacrifices his shield for a second blade OR the Rogue who likes to stab with a poisoned dagger whilst engaged in a duel or even the Bladesinger/Swordmage who uses that off-hand attack with a firey fist or blade-boot? These options are not viable at all, even with the Two-Weapon Fighting feat. All the TWF feat does is give you a nice little bonus to damage rolls while your wielding two-melee weapons and 1 must be a off-hand weapon or you start take penalties.
So how can we allow people who aren't specifically trained to fight with two weapons the ability to use them AND still maintain that 'special' aspect for the aformentioned classes? Is this even possible and remain in the vacinity of balance? I'd hope so and here's my first take:
Two-Weapon Fighting
Prerequisite: Dex 13
Benefit: Gain the benefits normally associated with the Two-Weapon Fighting feat (see normal beneits for Two-Weapon Fighting feat, Player's Handbook p. 201).
In addition, replace your Melee-basic attack's hit line with the following:
Hit: 1[W] + Strength modifier damage. If you are wielding two weapons, you may make a secondary attack against the same target. This attack uses the same modifier as your melee-basic attack and deals 1[W] damage.
The balance points are:
Ok, so what do you think for a rough draft?
I think what you have looks fine at first glance any way. It'd take dedicated charops guys to tell me how to break it.
Still I have to wonder why I'm boosting my melee basic? This tends to be where things get hung up and why most feats like this end up not being chosen. Either I'm already exploiting melee basics in some manner and you've just provided me a sweet way to exploit them further or the feat is not one I'm likely to pick up because my build is dependent on powers my goal in every round of combat is to use my next encounter power.
Ultimately your back where you started as far as I can see - being able to use two weapons does not normally mean we want to use them, we want to use our powers except in the specific case where the build actually exploits melee basics - in effect the feat does not address the underlying reason why unique weapons don't normally get taken which is ultimately the power system itself.
In most editions of the game players build an attack - fundamentally all melee classes have a melee basic and they build on that in order to create either powers (rare) or souped a souped up melee basic (usually).
In 4E mostly only the essentials go the souped up melee basic route, the rest of the classes use their powers and fall back on the melee basic only in unusual circumstances. I don't see how this feat changes that reality - and am not sure its a reality that ought to be changed in any case.
You could argue the need for completeness sake, I'd see your point but would not really agree with you - I personally feel we already have far too many feats and would like to see those that just gather dust removed, their existence causes more harm then good since players often go through the whole list every few levels and feats that gather dust makes that a longer and less enjoyable process.
Maybe the option to "split" some of your encounter/daily powers?
So take a 3W enc power and instead this would let you make two attacks, the primary weapon doing 2W-2 and the off hand weapon doing 1W-4 (or something similar to compensate for the increased chance of a hit and a critical). Any imposed conditions being attached to the primary attack.
Favoriting for potential use in a game. Me likee.
I think what you have looks fine at first glance any way. It'd take dedicated charops guys to tell me how to break it.
Still I have to wonder why I'm boosting my melee basic? This tends to be where things get hung up and why most feats like this end up not being chosen. Either I'm already exploiting melee basics in some manner and you've just provided me a sweet way to exploit them further or the feat is not one I'm likely to pick up because my build is dependent on powers my goal in every round of combat is to use my next encounter power.
Ultimately your back where you started as far as I can see - being able to use two weapons does not normally mean we want to use them, we want to use our powers except in the specific case where the build actually exploits melee basics - in effect the feat does not address the underlying reason why unique weapons don't normally get taken which is ultimately the power system itself.
It's not really boosting a MBA, so to speak because many builds that fight with TWF often don't have other modifiers to add to the weapon damage. The TWF feat this addition is tacked on to still serves as a Prerequisite for those Paragon and Epic tier feats in addition to the normal benefits gained by TWF.
You also mention the reasons of why someone is using two-weapons, but there have been times when I felt that, thematically, a character should wield two different weapons. Perhaps it's a Rogue or Avenger or even a Bladesinger that likes to use his off-hand fist. The point is, they don't attempt to go the TWF route that's currently in place because it's SO Far impractiacal that they'd cheapen their characer immensly just for a few powers they might not have the 'Juice' for (meaning using Str vs. another stat).
In most editions of the game players build an attack - fundamentally all melee classes have a melee basic and they build on that in order to create either powers (rare) or souped a souped up melee basic (usually).
In 4E mostly only the essentials go the souped up melee basic route, the rest of the classes use their powers and fall back on the melee basic only in unusual circumstances. I don't see how this feat changes that reality - and am not sure its a reality that ought to be changed in any case.
You could argue the need for completeness sake, I'd see your point but would not really agree with you - I personally feel we already have far too many feats and would like to see those that just gather dust removed, their existence causes more harm then good since players often go through the whole list every few levels and feats that gather dust makes that a longer and less enjoyable process.
Weaponmaster Fighters make use of Melee-Basic attacks whenever they perform an Opportuinity Attack triggerd from their marking mechanic. Assaulting Swordmages make MBAs when their Aegis is triggered and they teleport to make an attack. Bladesingers base all their Bladesong spells when they hit with a Melee-Basic Attack. Characters that enjoy Charging always use a MBA except when they have another power to do the job. Really, the only classes that wouldn't get a really good kick from this are Martial-Powered Essentials characters. Slayers tend to always favor heavy, two-handed weapons and Knights are 9/10 going to use a Shield. Scouts already gain an off-hand attack at will ability so that leaves....Thieves. Makes sense to me that a Thief might want a way to utilize their two-weapons when performing tricks and similiar attacks.
And if any chacter is going to take Two-Weapon Fighting feat, they're still going to take it for the benefits of the damage to attack while using two weapons, this just adds a little more kick. TWF Rangers, Fighters, and Barbarians can all make MBAs from granted attacks due to a Warlord and if they're already making a MBA for that, they might as well make an off-hand attack IF that 1st one hits. It also doesn't step on Heavy Blade Opportuinity toes because that feat allows a Character to use any At-Will power they know in place of a MBA, like Twin Strike or Dual Strike. Both powers are stronger than the added benefit of the TWF feat.
But you make some great points and I'll definitly keep them in mind.
Maybe the option to "split" some of your encounter/daily powers?
So take a 3W enc power and instead this would let you make two attacks, the primary weapon doing 2W-2 and the off hand weapon doing 1W-4 (or something similar to compensate for the increased chance of a hit and a critical). Any imposed conditions being attached to the primary attack.
That's also a very interesting concept. When I get a chance to playtest this, hoepfully we'll have a party memeber who enjoys using TWF and I'll make one as well, compare and contract the differences of the options. But I do think the 1[W]-4 is extreamly harsh, but I'm ok with a -2 penalty to damage per attack as it seems easier to upkeep.
That's also a very interesting concept. When I get a chance to playtest this, hoepfully we'll have a party memeber who enjoys using TWF and I'll make one as well, compare and contract the differences of the options. But I do think the 1[W]-4 is extreamly harsh, but I'm ok with a -2 penalty to damage per attack as it seems easier to upkeep.
Yeah, I just made those up, I have no idea what would work. It was purely an off-the-cuff response to Jeremy Mac Donald.
I suspect it would have to be pretty harsh though, in order to make sure it wasn't an auto-option once critical bonuses become significant. The increased number of attack rolls would be a pretty good deal (my ranger regularly found himself preferring twin strike to encounter powers with only one attack roll).
|
Surely if an elven paladin wants to dual-wield he can multiclass or hybridise with ranger or something similar? Also, while I don't think Diffan's suggestion would be very unbalancing, on the other hand it could be a lot more effective for stuff like opportunity attacks - you don't even get to dual-wield in 3e for that. Personally, the conflation of dual-wielding with classes/powers rather than feats is a feature of 4e, and inherent to the balance. Or putting it another way, dual-wielding is hard to master - you should be dedicated to it, not just drop a feat and "bingo!" I guess it's preference but after all this time I'm not really exercised about this as an issue. Otherwise we start getting into the whole thing of tripping, disarming and so on, the basic mechanics of which were fundamentally changed between editions.
Surely if an elven paladin wants to dual-wield he can multiclass or hybridise with ranger or something similar? Also, while I don't think Diffan's suggestion would be very unbalancing, on the other hand it could be a lot more effective for stuff like opportunity attacks - you don't even get to dual-wield in 3e for that. Personally, the conflation of dual-wielding with classes/powers rather than feats is a feature of 4e, and inherent to the balance. Or putting it another way, dual-wielding is hard to master - you should be dedicated to it, not just drop a feat and "bingo!" I guess it's preference but after all this time I'm not really exercised about this as an issue. Otherwise we start getting into the whole thing of tripping, disarming and so on, the basic mechanics of which were fundamentally changed between editions.
The idea behind my design was to tack it onto a feat people who enjoy TWF are already going to take, regardless of the off-hand MBA. It's also considered a Heroic Tier feat and thus, gets outpaced by Paragon and Epic tier feats in power and scope. But for people who enjoy fighting with two weapons that don't have the Stat investment or Multiclass/Hybrid investment can still use the style, albiet limitedly.
Take, for example, an Elven Avenger who uses Wisdom and Dexterity to punish his foes in the name of Corellon Larethian. Now 9/10 of Avengers will go the Two-handed weapon style because they're not proficient with shields nor do they have two-weapon fighting powers. And they don't often invest with Strength, the sole ability score for two-weapon fighting. Yet they see envision an elven Avenger wielding two swords and being all "Drizzt" like. So they take Melee Training (Wisdom), a feat that helps them generally speaking and then Two-Weapon Fighting because they meet the Dexterity prerequisite. This then makes their seemingly boring Melee Basic attack a more interesting option, espically since they can roll twice on their d20 melee attacks.
Really, it's about preserving an iconic swordstyle while still maintaining an amount of balance. And that's as far as it'll go, probably since there isn't a way to gain dual-wield powers with a primary Wisdom modifier and Dex as your secondary ability score.
Its to bad they don't allow us to add to the Character Builder. If nothing else you've convinced me that there is some possibility the feat has a good home in 4E. At this point I'd at least stick it in the CB if I had the option and find out.
Its to bad they don't allow us to add to the Character Builder. If nothing else you've convinced me that there is some possibility the feat has a good home in 4E. At this point I'd at least stick it in the CB if I had the option and find out.
Agreed. One of the only complaints I had with the CB was that you couldn't do any homebrew material within it. It's be awesome if you could add your own feats, your own Paragon Paths, your own Themes and so forth. Perhaps they'll finally realize that and allow it at some future date.
|
|
Have to disagree, Diffan - this is 3e thinking. A lot of feats were changed into powers and that was the design methodology, with feats intended to have relatively trivial effects around the edge. I don't think the feat is very unbalancing but this seems to me it would be much better if your elven paladin or avenger either multiclassed or had an at-will designed to do this for them. Anyway, it looks weird to be to be dual-wielding for melee basic attacks but not powers. For a class which doesn't typically dual-wield, their powers won't be acclimatised to this and you could find them doing melee basics all the time rather than using powers. Less of an issue with Essentials-style characters which use melee basics, though a potential one for non-Essentials characters, also possibly a marginal step up the power curve (certainly much more predictable damage output from two dice rather than one). My my main objection is aesthetic - this isn't how 4e is designed, and this is a shoehorning of a 3e approach just seems inappropriate - you want to dual-wield, there are at least three options for you already under ranger, fighter and barbarian, and further feats too.
Have to disagree, Diffan - this is 3e thinking. A lot of feats were changed into powers and that was the design methodology, with feats intended to have relatively trivial effects around the edge. I don't think the feat is very unbalancing but this seems to me it would be much better if your elven paladin or avenger either multiclassed or had an at-will designed to do this for them. Anyway, it looks weird to be to be dual-wielding for melee basic attacks but not powers. For a class which doesn't typically dual-wield, their powers won't be acclimatised to this and you could find them doing melee basics all the time rather than using powers. Less of an issue with Essentials-style characters which use melee basics, though a potential one for non-Essentials characters, also possibly a marginal step up the power curve (certainly much more predictable damage output from two dice rather than one). My my main objection is aesthetic - this isn't how 4e is designed, and this is a shoehorning of a 3e approach just seems inappropriate - you want to dual-wield, there are at least three options for you already under ranger, fighter and barbarian, and further feats too.
I believe that the majority of two-weapon styles lies with the clases you suggested and should stay the superior methods of fighting with that style. But it's not just that these powers are tied into specific classes, they're tied into specifici abilitiy scores too. For example, anyone with an Intelligence 13 can take Arcane Initiate but in truth, no one who's Intelligence is 16 or under is really going to take that feat. Why? Because you have to have a pretty high modifier associated with that power for any chance of that ability actually hitting. That's the main problem with TWF in 4E, not that only a few specific classes can use it with proficiency, but because anyone without Strength as a Primary stat cannot.
So taking our Elven Paladin character, he gets +2 to Dex/Wis and so that means he'll be putting in his 18 in either Strength or Charisma. RAW means he'll have to go Strength-based to have any chance of using two weapons with some proficiency. If the TWF feat allows off-hand attacks after a successful hit from a MBA, then he now has the option to go Charisma-based and take Melee Training (Charisma) to make it off of one stat. Basically your giving up some damage per turn AND taking up an extra feat so you have more versatility in going Charisma.
I believe it also helps players in situations where neither At-Will power will be that great a choices. Keeping with the Elven Paladin character, say he takes Ardent Strike and Enfeebling Strike as his two melee at-wills. In situations where he's going up against one creature, Ardent Strike is all but useless, and Enfeebling Strike is ok as a -2 penalty to attack rolls is very nice.....but if the Paladin already has a pretty decent AC it might not make that much of a differece. So instead of going either of these two routes, he switches to a MBA with the possiblity of making a secondary off-hand attack if the first one hits. It's certainly not an option every round and it's not going to be as powerful as most At-Wills but a fun option none-the-less.
Also, as I was reading through the compendium, it's come to my attention that my first draft allows a character to make a off-hand attack on Opportuinity Attacks, and a feat already gives a player this power...at 21st level. So here's my second draft:
Two-Weapon Fighting
Prerequisite: Dexterity 13
Benefit: When wielding a two melee weapons in each hand, you receive a +1 bonus to the damage rolls of weapon attacks that you make with melee weapon.
In addition, replace your Melee-basic attack's hit line with the following:
Hit: 1[W] + Strength modifier damage. If you are wielding two weapons, you may make a secondary attack against the same target as a free action. This attack uses the same modifier as your melee basic attack and deals 1[W] damage.
Special: This off-hand attack can only be used in conjunction with a melee basic attack and not on Opportuinity Attacks.
Hopefully this will clear up any attempts to use this in conjunction with powers that are used in lieu of a Melee Basic Attack AND discourage anyone from trying to use OAs with the off-hand until they get the Epic tier feat.
So I ran the feat by my friend and his first words were "Broken". When I asked him why, he informed me on how powerful a feat would be in the hands of a character lead by a Warlord and his insistance on doling out extra Melee Basic Attacks. He also mentioned that there are many Striker features which allow added benefits and MBAs along with their powers. Now, he said he liked the feat but it needs more restricting, and this was his suggestion:
third draft:
Two Weapon Fighting
Prerequisite: Dexterity 13
Benefit: When wielding a melee weapon in each hand, you receive a +1 bonus to the damage rolls of weapon attacks that you make.
In addition, replace your Melee Basic Attack's hit line with the following:
Hit: 1[W] + Strength modifier damage. If you are wielding two weapons, you may make a secondary (off-hand) attack against the same target as a free action. This attack uses the same modifier as your melee basic attack and deals 1[W] damage.
Special: This off-hand attack can only be used once per round in conjunction with a melee basic attack and not on Opportuinity Attacks.
This further illustrates that IF you use your MBA's off-hand attack, on your turn it cannot be used at all until the start of your next turn. This eliminates any off-turn shenannigans, extra attack shenannigans, Striker power shenannigans, or even Action Point shenannigans.
Any thoughts on this version?
The whole point in 4e was to generally have a single attack roll in a given round and use other mechanisms to reflect the second weapons effect. I personally like a second weapon to have a bonus to your to-hit giving you some options. Two handed weapons do more damage, a shield for greater AC or a second weapon to hit more often.
I think a second attack roll is adding unnecessary complications to the system.
|
|
It occurred to me that this could be quite powerful with an Essentials-style character using melee basics with stance modifiers. If someone takes the Ranger multiclass feat that allows for one-handed weapons to be treated as off-hand, suddenly you could be looking at 2d10 per round damage (broadsword, or maybe even bastard sword with the use of EWP), not including opportunity attacks and so on. That seems a bit excessive compared to other classes, especially if they are non-strikers, for a melee basic attack. And you are finding yourself that it needs more restricting than is necessarily really optimum for a feat that's supposed to be nice and intuitive. My aesthetic considerations aside, your friend might be right and this could be a bit more broken than it initially appears.