Attacking with both hands - Downloaded from the Wizards Community, all coding removed by Solauren

Attacking with both hands

Post/Author/DateTime Post
#1
truck
Nov 26, 2009 22:51:28 I'we been looking around and I can't find any homebrew rules about this anywhere. In 4e the rules state that you can only attack with either your main hand or your off hand weapon with a standard action. Does anyone have any alternatives? It just sounds silly that I can't say that I pick up a dagger with my right and my left hand and throw them simultaneously at the enemy with the current rules.

Tnx
#2
Crimson_Concerto
Nov 26, 2009 23:48:50 There are plenty of powers that allow you to attack with both your main-hand and your off-hand simultaneously. Ranger has a large amount, including an at-will power, but Fighter and Barbarian have some too. If you're going for throwing weapons, I recommend Ranger.
Basically, you can't find any homebrews for the idea because they're just not necessary. The system already handles what you want just fine.
#3
truck
Nov 27, 2009 2:06:09 I disagree. You should still be able to use both your hans even if you're a rogue.
But would it really be that imbalanced to make a homebrew rule for this? I'm looking for feedback.
#4
Damon_Tor
Nov 27, 2009 2:19:51 I wouldn't be opposed to a rogue build that uses dual wielding. An at-will along the lines of twin-strike wouldn't be terribly out of line.

Outside of new properly balanced powers, look at the two-weapon fighting feats.
#5
generalhenry
Nov 27, 2009 2:25:35
I disagree. You should still be able to use both your hans even if you're a rogue.
But would it really be that imbalanced to make a homebrew rule for this? I'm looking for feedback.

Where is this "should be" coming from?

should a cleric be able to?

Where do we draw the line?

currently the line is drawn around rangers, fighters and barbarians
#6
Crimson_Concerto
Nov 27, 2009 2:32:31
I disagree. You should still be able to use both your hans even if you're a rogue.
But would it really be that imbalanced to make a homebrew rule for this? I'm looking for feedback.

Ah, in other words, what you're looking for from this thread is a Two-Weapon Rogue Build. Well then, why didn't you just say that?
Anyways, I'm betting you'll get your wish in Martial Power 2, and if not, you can always just multi-class into Ranger.
#7
generalhenry
Nov 27, 2009 17:43:38 Also, define "rogue"

Would a ranger build with stealth and thievery work?
#8
Bera
Nov 28, 2009 0:34:45 I bet you could still take two weapon fighting with a rogue. That extra weapon can help increase your damage with the primary weapon for the low low cost of a feat. Then you can take other two-weapon fighting feats after that.
#9
Chimerasame
Nov 28, 2009 5:13:54 If you're not picky about race, build a half-elf rogue and pick up Twin Strike from ranger with your dilettante power. If you go this route, and you're a Str/Dex rogue, then you're good.

If you're a Dex/Cha rogue, I'd actually recommend picking up Bard for a MC feat and grabbing Combat Virtuoso such that you can use charisma instead of strength for attack rolls with twin strike.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 truck Nov 26, 2009 22:51:28	I'we been looking around and I can't find any homebrew rules about this anywhere. In 4e the rules state that you can only attack with either your main hand or your off hand weapon with a standard action. Does anyone have any alternatives? It just sounds silly that I can't say that I pick up a dagger with my right and my left hand and throw them simultaneously at the enemy with the current rules. Tnx
#2 Crimson_Concerto Nov 26, 2009 23:48:50	There are plenty of powers that allow you to attack with both your main-hand and your off-hand simultaneously. Ranger has a large amount, including an at-will power, but Fighter and Barbarian have some too. If you're going for throwing weapons, I recommend Ranger. Basically, you can't find any homebrews for the idea because they're just not necessary. The system already handles what you want just fine.
#3 truck Nov 27, 2009 2:06:09	I disagree. You should still be able to use both your hans even if you're a rogue. But would it really be that imbalanced to make a homebrew rule for this? I'm looking for feedback.
#4 Damon_Tor Nov 27, 2009 2:19:51	I wouldn't be opposed to a rogue build that uses dual wielding. An at-will along the lines of twin-strike wouldn't be terribly out of line. Outside of new properly balanced powers, look at the two-weapon fighting feats.
#5 generalhenry Nov 27, 2009 2:25:35	I disagree. You should still be able to use both your hans even if you're a rogue. But would it really be that imbalanced to make a homebrew rule for this? I'm looking for feedback. Where is this "should be" coming from? should a cleric be able to? Where do we draw the line? currently the line is drawn around rangers, fighters and barbarians
#6 Crimson_Concerto Nov 27, 2009 2:32:31	I disagree. You should still be able to use both your hans even if you're a rogue. But would it really be that imbalanced to make a homebrew rule for this? I'm looking for feedback. Ah, in other words, what you're looking for from this thread is a Two-Weapon Rogue Build. Well then, why didn't you just say that? Anyways, I'm betting you'll get your wish in Martial Power 2, and if not, you can always just multi-class into Ranger.
#7 generalhenry Nov 27, 2009 17:43:38	Also, define "rogue" Would a ranger build with stealth and thievery work?
#8 Bera Nov 28, 2009 0:34:45	I bet you could still take two weapon fighting with a rogue. That extra weapon can help increase your damage with the primary weapon for the low low cost of a feat. Then you can take other two-weapon fighting feats after that.
#9 Chimerasame Nov 28, 2009 5:13:54	If you're not picky about race, build a half-elf rogue and pick up Twin Strike from ranger with your dilettante power. If you go this route, and you're a Str/Dex rogue, then you're good. If you're a Dex/Cha rogue, I'd actually recommend picking up Bard for a MC feat and grabbing Combat Virtuoso such that you can use charisma instead of strength for attack rolls with twin strike.