Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 fjw70 Apr 19, 2010 15:05:07	Th Paladin in my party (who is new to 4e) asked if the Paly could attack with two weapons in one round.  I informed her that there is no way for a character in 4e to do this without being a ranger or fighter.  But then I have been thinking of house rules for this.  How's this: Anyone can make two basic melee attacks in a round with a -4 penalty to each attack and no ability bonus to damage.  Then you can take a feat to reduce the penalty to -2.
#2 bone_naga Apr 19, 2010 16:31:31	I would suggest not doing this. First off, the feat to reduce the penalty is just a feat tax, plain and simple. As for the penalties, either they end up being too harsh and the player never hits anything, or the player finds a way to abuse the system and ends up doing much more damage than he should for his class. There's not much middle ground there. Point out that it takes a lot of training to effectively fight with two weapons the way he suggests. You don't just pick up something in each hand and suddenly attack faster than you did before. There are also a number of ways he can fill this concept within the current rules. Have him take the two-weapon fighting feats. The +1 to damage (and to AC/Reflex if you take two-weapon defense) don't seem that impressive, but it's a start and it gives him some mechanical benefit for using two weapons. He can switch between weapons every round if he so chooses to represent attacking with one and then the other. He can paragon MC fighter or ranger to get their dual/twin strike power. He can go with half-elf and take one of those powers as his dilettente (which only lets him do it 1/encounter at heroic, but come paragon he can take a feat to make it at-will). If he takes two-weapon fighting, there are further feats he can take (I can't remember the names, but one lets you make two attacks when you make an OA and the other lets you attack with your off-hand weapon whenever you crit with your primary weapon). If his concept is really that strongly centered around two-weapon fighting and he isn't satisfied with any of the above ways to represent that, consider letting him rebuild his character as a fighter or ranger MC paladin, or making him a hybrid character.
#3 ChrisTheS Apr 19, 2010 17:31:59	Try this for a house rule: any dual-wielding character can make two attack ROLLS during an attack action.  However: - The second attack roll can be made only on a primary attack, and both attacks have to be against the same target. - Each individual attack deals half normal [W] damage (if it's an uneven number of [W], the first attack gets the surplus). - Additional damage (including ability and feat modifiers) and rider effects are only applied to the first successful attack. - In return for getting a second chance to hit, the character grants combat advantage to all enemies except the one targeted by the double attack until the start of their next turn. If you apply this rule, I recommend also changing the Two-Weapon Fighting feat to say "add a +1 bonus OR your off-hand weapon's enhancement bonus (whichever is higher) to the damage roll," since it would give non-rangers an incentive to carry two enchanted weapons.
#4 pluisjen Apr 20, 2010 3:41:26	I wouldn't change the rules. Instead, point him to the Two Weapon Fighting feats (as suggested above) and give him two weapons that do different things. Let him multiclass Fighter, Ranger or Barbarian (they have a two-weapon build too) and powerswap in an Encounter power with two weapons. Assuming at least one of his weapons is off-hand, or he picks up a MC feat that lets him treat normal weapons as such, he'll have access to an encounter power with two weapons, and he can use his Action Point to attack with both weapons too (in two different standard actions, but hey it's a start) It'll make or an interesting two-weapon wielding Paladin, and if he continues to enjoy it, he could always choose to Paragon Multiclass, that gives him an at-will, and he can freely pick encounter powers from his other class. The other question to ask is: why does he want to be a two-weapon fighting Paladin? Perhaps he is better served as a Tempest Fighter (same role, better suited) instead. He'll still have heavy armor (well... Chain not Plate, but it's still heavy armor) and he can still have his roleplaying a true Knight (if that was why he picked Paladin; I know a lot of people do)
#5 babyj Apr 20, 2010 4:28:08	Its not that its not possible or the system is broken, its that his character doesn't spend enough time on fighting in that way to have gained a power which hits with two weapons. Consenting with the opinion of bone_naga and Pluisjen.
#6 fjw70 Apr 20, 2010 10:06:14	I would suggest not doing this. First off, the feat to reduce the penalty is just a feat tax, plain and simple. I wouldn't mind a feat tax if the tax is to do something above and beyond the rules.  That is the trade off the player would have to make. As for the penalties, either they end up being too harsh and the player never hits anything, or the player finds a way to abuse the system and ends up doing much more damage than he should for his class. There's not much middle ground there. I guess I disagree with the no middle ground comment.  I was hoping to get help in finding the middle ground.  Point out that it takes a lot of training to effectively fight with two weapons the way he suggests. You don't just pick up something in each hand and suddenly attack faster than you did before. There are also a number of ways he can fill this concept within the current rules. Have him take the two-weapon fighting feats. The +1 to damage (and to AC/Reflex if you take two-weapon defense) don't seem that impressive, but it's a start and it gives him some mechanical benefit for using two weapons. He can switch between weapons every round if he so chooses to represent attacking with one and then the other. He can paragon MC fighter or ranger to get their dual/twin strike power. He can go with half-elf and take one of those powers as his dilettente (which only lets him do it 1/encounter at heroic, but come paragon he can take a feat to make it at-will). If he takes two-weapon fighting, there are further feats he can take (I can't remember the names, but one lets you make two attacks when you make an OA and the other lets you attack with your off-hand weapon whenever you crit with your primary weapon). If his concept is really that strongly centered around two-weapon fighting and he isn't satisfied with any of the above ways to represent that, consider letting him rebuild his character as a fighter or ranger MC paladin, or making him a hybrid character. We discussed the MC and Hybrid options already and she wasn't interested.  I can understand her point that the MC and Hybrid option are very involved and costly (in lost featsand powers) to occasionally use a two weapon fight technique.  In addition I would like to have a rule that applied to all characters that may want to occasionally use two weapons. I appreciate the input from everyone, but I am still leaning towards allowing it.  Here is my updated houserule. To fight with a weapon in each hand you can get two basic melee attacks at a -5 penalty to attack with each weapon and no STR bonus to damage.  The -5 is reduced to -4 if one of the weapons has the off-hand property.  If you take the two-weapon fighting feat then the penalty is reduced by 2 (instead of the +1 to damage).  So the paly in my group that wants to fight with a battleaxe in one hand and a warhammer in the other would get a -3 penalty if she took the TWF feat. I don't see anything game-breaking with this house rule.  Any comments on the penalties?  Too much?  Not enough?
#7 fjw70 Apr 20, 2010 10:23:21	Okay, here is a really radical idea.  Since my houserule is basically just Twin Strike with penalties, how about letting any character attempt any martial at-will attack power at a penalty of -4 to attack, and if they take the appropriate power feat (e.g. At-Will Attack Power (Twin Strike)) then the penalty becomes -2. At this point it is just an idea and I haven't looked at all martial at-will attack powers to see if there is something very bad (from a balance perspective) that could happen.
#8 ultralogan23 Apr 20, 2010 10:55:18	There is a power that would be very bad from a balance perspective-Twin Strike. If the player is just looking for a way to get around the rules for extra power and you and the other players are OK with that  then just let them all pick up an extra out of class at will.You would be safe upping their effective level by 1 or 2 for planning encounters.  If it's a role-playing/theme thing then actually the current rules are a lot closer to being both realistic and cinematic. A round is an exchange of blows and skillfully wielding two weapons makes it slightly easier to hit and therefore deal damage (TWF) and defend yourself (TWD). For example "I step in knocking back the orc's ax with my longsword then force him off balance with a swing my shortsword letting me bring the full fury of my holy strike down upon him with my longsword". There are very few ways to get a power from another class, and good reasons for this. If you think it would add more enjoyment to your game go for it. Just be sure you treat all the players fairly, don't step on anyone else's class "specialness", keep the adventures challenging , and have fun.
#9 pluisjen Apr 20, 2010 12:00:43	I still don't understand why the player wants a two-weapon fighting Paladin? And I understand even less, if this is so important to her, why she doesn't want to MC to get this ability, that is apparently so crucial to her character that she wants to use it as much as possible?
#10 fjw70 Apr 20, 2010 12:32:04	I still don't understand why the player wants a two-weapon fighting Paladin? She wants to play a paladin and thinks it would be cool to fight with two weapons (i.e. actually attack with both in a single round).  And I understand even less, if this is so important to her, why she doesn't want to MC to get this ability, that is apparently so crucial to her character that she wants to use it as much as possible? I never said it was crucial to her character.  She simply asked about it and we discussed the Hybrid/MC/feat options she had.  She hasn't said another word about it since then. I took the idea and gave it some thought and decided it would be cool for any character to fight with two weapons (i.e. really attack with both and not just get a +1 to damage) occasionally.  So I came up with some houserules and came here fine tune them.
#11 fjw70 Apr 20, 2010 12:32:39	There is a power that would be very bad from a balance perspective-Twin Strike. Could you elaborate?
#12 Bluenose Apr 20, 2010 12:37:39	Don't get hung up on the class name. Decide, what's the important bit of the character concept? Is is the 'religiously faithful person who happens to fight with two weapons'? That could work as a Paladin with the Two-weapon fighting feat. It's not optimal, but it's not a disaster either. Is it 'someone who fights with two-weapons and has a strong faith'? then go with Fighter, specifically the Tempest build, and take a background which support it and gain Religion as a skill and perhaps Ritual Caster as a feat. Multi-class if necessary into Paladin, Cleric or Warlord.
#13 fjw70 Apr 20, 2010 14:22:58	Don't get hung up on the class name. Decide, what's the important bit of the character concept? Is is the 'religiously faithful person who happens to fight with two weapons'? That could work as a Paladin with the Two-weapon fighting feat. It's not optimal, but it's not a disaster either. Is it 'someone who fights with two-weapons and has a strong faith'? then go with Fighter, specifically the Tempest build, and take a background which support it and gain Religion as a skill and perhaps Ritual Caster as a feat. Multi-class if necessary into Paladin, Cleric or Warlord. Yes, I covered this wth her.
#14 pluisjen Apr 20, 2010 15:37:48	Well... you could go with your house rule, but the thing is that most characters don't exactly want to rely on basic attacks. Especially not the Paladin, who is a Defender and not a Striker. She wants to use powers that help her keep herself and her friends alive, such as Paladin at-wills that mark or give temp HP or something. If she wants to constantly swing both weapons for maximum damage.. she's almost a Hybrid Ranger already; might as well go all the way with it. At least that way you know the rules support your character, instead of having a house rule that may or may not work. It's very dangerous to balance; Twin Strike is one of the best at-wills in the game precisely because it allows two attack rolls, but a to-hit penalty can easily make it so weak it's useless, especially to a Defender.
#15 ChrisTheS Apr 20, 2010 15:38:21	Then, if she's still dead-set on that class, I think you're better off working with her to create a few original dual-wielding powers for the Paladin class rather than trying to create a general dual-wielding houserule for everyone.  That way she gets what she wants without having to suck at it.  Just don't do what I did; I created ranged versions of every melee cleric power in the PHB just because one player was dead-set on playing a bow-wielding cleric - you should just work out a new power if the player decides none of the other options for that level will do the trick and she wants a new 2-weapon power instead. I also suggest taking my previous suggestion into account when designing said powers - even if you make them not single-target, their total damage output shouldn't exceed what the paladin is already able to do.
#16 Bluenose Apr 21, 2010 3:17:12	Then, if she's still dead-set on that class, I think you're better off working with her to create a few original dual-wielding powers for the Paladin class rather than trying to create a general dual-wielding houserule for everyone.  That way she gets what she wants without having to suck at it.  Just don't do what I did; I created ranged versions of every melee cleric power in the PHB just because one player was dead-set on playing a bow-wielding cleric - you should just work out a new power if the player decides none of the other options for that level will do the trick and she wants a new 2-weapon power instead. I also suggest taking my previous suggestion into account when designing said powers - even if you make them not single-target, their total damage output shouldn't exceed what the paladin is already able to do. I thought a bit about this last night. If she's absolutely dead set on writing Paladin on her character sheet, and still wants to fight with two weapons, then I wouldn't personally bother with writing up new powers for her. Just let her pick from Fighter powers that require two weapons (Dual Strike is the at-will she wants). It's not as if Tempest Fighters are noticeably overpowered, or that there's hugely more to keep track of.
#17 pluisjen Apr 21, 2010 3:19:36	That's not a bad idea probably, letting her pick up some Tempest Fighter powers. Another note; you said she wanted to fight with axe and hammer; keep in mind at least one of them needs to be Offhand or she can't swing them. (Unless she picks up Twoblade Warrior (which makes her an MC Ranger))
#18 ChrisTheS Apr 21, 2010 9:40:11	There are two issues I would have with just substituting Tempest powers.  First is that they just feel 'wrong' for the paladin (I'd want something that actually supported my class features, for instance).  The second is that many of them (all of the ones I can recall off the top of my head) have Dex-based riders, which isn't exactly a prime Paladin stat.
#19 bone_naga Apr 23, 2010 18:36:34	There are two issues I would have with just substituting Tempest powers.  First is that they just feel 'wrong' for the paladin (I'd want something that actually supported my class features, for instance).  The second is that many of them (all of the ones I can recall off the top of my head) have Dex-based riders, which isn't exactly a prime Paladin stat. True but if she was going for an optimal character I don't think she'd be so dead set on being a dual-wielding paladin in the first place. I would say that's the price she pays for grabbing another class's powers. And if you go this route, don't let her multiclass on top of it.
#20 P1NBACK Apr 23, 2010 18:59:05	Why is she opposed to playing a fighter or a ranger (for their combat role and two-weapon) and spending multi-class feats for some paladin stuff and flavoring her character as a religious fighter type (isn't that what a paladin is?)...?  Give her a little code of honor. A god to worship. And, bam. You're set.
#21 ChrisTheS Apr 23, 2010 21:25:16	True but if she was going for an optimal character I don't think she'd be so dead set on being a dual-wielding paladin in the first place. I would say that's the price she pays for grabbing another class's powers. Screw optimal.  I'm just suggesting that forcing her to be sub-optimal is a bad idea.  If the player is set on a particular concept and doesn't feel satisfied with the existing options, she is not going to be satisfied by using the exact same options with just a different access vector: you're saving on feats this way, but you're also losing out on the fringe benefits of multiclassing, and the powers are still sub-optimal for the combination.  If the player is planning on making this an integral part of the character (we don't have enough information to make that call, but assume that it's so for the sake of argument) then inflicting a penalty (non-crippling, but definitely irritating) on that integral part is not an acceptable solution. Now, if you ALSO change all the Dex riders on the fighter 2-weapon powers to Wis riders, that's a bit better - still not as good as developing original powers that work with the paladin class features, but at least then you're not forcing the character to suck for the sake of a stylistic choice.
#22 salla Apr 23, 2010 21:27:50	The first thing that goes through my brain is just having her hybrid with either Ranger (two-blade) or Fighter (tempest).   It's no different, ultimately, than if she were saying she wanted her paladin to cast spells.  If you want a class feature of a different class, that's what hybrid/multiclass is FOR.
#23 P1NBACK Apr 24, 2010 22:02:08	Now, if you ALSO change all the Dex riders on the fighter 2-weapon powers to Wis riders, that's a bit better - still not as good as developing original powers that work with the paladin class features, but at least then you're not forcing the character to suck for the sake of a stylistic choice. But, we've already established the player is not making a stylistic choice. It's obvious the player wants the mechanical benefits of a paladin and also the bonus of TWF...  If the player was concerned about style only, she'd be happy with playing a tempest or ranger and flavoring her character as a paladin. "Hey, guys, technically my character is a fighter, but please call her Sir Kaylee the Paladin of Bahamut. My alignment is lawful good and I wear a holy symbol and live by a strict code of honor and all that stuff..."
#24 Dark_Stryke Apr 24, 2010 23:01:42	I'm with Salla on this one. It's a little rude of the player to be given perfectly valid options for making her character work within the mechanics of the game, only for her to say "nope! I want to be a pure paladin but dual wield!" Paladins don't do that in this edition. Simple as that. If you want to dual wield, there are three - count 'em - THREE classes that can do it, all of which have the exact same primary stat as the paladin, making multiclassing or hybrid classing incredibly easy. If the player is complaining about the heavy feat investment (precisely zero if you're hybrid classing, or a minimum of 2 for multiclassing) I don't see how creating new feats is going to help. It'll still require a feat investment. Furthermore, OP, you're just reinventing the wheel here. Why create feats to let martial classes use each others' powers at a penalty (also, the paladin is a divine class, so that wouldn't work anyway) when there are already multiclassing, hybrid classing, and half-elf options to do so without penalty? All of that said, if you're absolutely dead set on bending over backwards for this player, I like Chris's idea best. Make up a couple encounter powers that let the paladin hit with two weapons and call it done. An easy level 1-3 power would let you attack two different targets with your main and off hand weapons for 1[W] + str mod and apply divine sanction to each.
#25 stargazer_dragon May 04, 2010 22:15:13	I have to go with Sala on this also, hybrid would fully fit the chars desires with perhaps 2 feats, hybrid talent and armor pro plate, Allows her to chose the 2 weapon fighting feats she wants while still having a paladin. MC would also do this with just a few more feat usage if there unhappy with the feet usage you could be realy nice and just give them the free feats. as for the powers stats not fitting that can be adressed 1 of 2 ways, alter the stat required or make them actualy have to give soemthing up to have exactly what they want. I very strongly sugest while your catering to this players desires to such a extent that you also keep in mind the rest of the players as catering to one and not the others is definatly a bad idea and catering to much to them all will also end badly.  There is a huge multitude of options for this player to get what they desire using one of them is compleatly resonable and easy solution. now if you as a dm realy like a duel weilding paladine as a common thing or realy like every player to duel weild keap in mind how it might take away from all the many classes that are made special becouse they can duel weild. Also keap a close eye on game balence. Lastly before making something new think how it will effect other player, how it will effect game balence /play, and how realy nessisary it is for the continued enjoyment. If it don't add enough to the game to realy make it worth the effort the work and the possible problems then avoid it if you think it will add enough to the game to make ALL the players enjoy the game more then good luck.
#26 fjw70 May 05, 2010 11:56:46	Thanks for the replies but you guy have really made a lot of assumptions that simply aren't true.  She didn't complain about anything and being two weilding isn't a central theme of her character.  Being new to 4e she simply asked the question.  I expalined her official options, she declined them, and hasn't said another word about it.  I was brainstorming a differrnt way for her to be able to do it.  Still not sure whether I will do it or not, but I do appreciate the input.
#27 stargazer_dragon May 05, 2010 12:12:00	kk I got the info from the zillion of posts here, understand the situation a bit better you as a DM like the idea of a way for chars to duel weild if they wish without current feats/builds being used. In this case you could use one of the above option or perhaps fluff it into exsistence.  here s how to fluff it into being, Use current rules for 2 weapon weilding however if they have 2 weapons and wish to use both in the attack, The first one does 1/2 weapon damage + all modifiers the second weapon does 1/2 weapon damage, perhaps with a aditional +1 damage similar to 2 handed weilding. only allow 1 target, and only the first weapon can activate/use magical properties. this makes the effect almost entirely fluff, some minor effects will still show through then the feats that add to damage and junk can add to the second attack so that it seams to get better. again all damage = to prety much the same as normal 2 weapon weilding but u get the effect of attacking with both weapons. Past these type of fluff effects I would sugest not changing / creating to many rules for it as that takes away from classes like the ranger who are built for such things not to mention runs balence issues and whatnot. anyhows hope your able to pick apart the sugestions and find what your after
#28 Nivek_Loneshadow May 06, 2010 6:01:57	I had to start skimming to have time to post today so if I missed anything already said I'm sorry. I noticed one person above say TWF was a "bonus"  I don't think it should be looked at this way.  It should be a balanced STYLE that adds flavor to the class nothing more.  Ok most paladin's don't use TWF but they should be allowed to have the option.  Jedi don't use it much either but Anakin had little trouble when he chose to make use of it.  I'm still wondering why Rogues don't get it at all in 4e.  To me they used it as much as rangers.  Now it's forbidden because the desgners couldn't think of anything unique to give the ranger class to make it a separate class.  4e lost all flavor like rangers being the best trackers ect.  so now whats left?  I know dont let other classes learn TWF.  Yeah thats cool.  We're starting to see more expansion at least.  For example Warlords have a bow option now.  Maybe someday we can even teach our fighters to use bows again!! I've been wishing that classes were designed differently from the start.  Rangers are basically two fighting styles stuck together.  I wish 4e would have designed fighting styles and class powers as totally separate.  You should be able to select a class and gain it's powers then select a fighting style like TWF, massive two-handed weapon, sword and shield, ect ect and then gain that pool of powers.  Just one of my crazy thoughts. To give suggestions.  Yes those saying Hybrid/MC are right in this case.  Fighters and Paladin's both use Str so you can take powers from each class and not worry too much.  My problems were always that I wanted a rogue that used dex to attack with TWF and that's not available at all in 4e. If that idea really isn't going to work for you then lets look at it this way.  Basically the Fighter and the Paladin fill the same role they just do it differently.  4e is designed to balance so Fighter/Defender powers shouldn't be that differently balanced than Paladin/Defender powers.  By that logic simply allowing her to take some of the fighter TWF powers shouldn't destroy game balance that much.  It's not like a rogue getting to somehow attack twice and apply SA to both attacks or anything like that.  I'd have to look at the powers again but I suggest tryingto adapt the fighter TWF's to fit the Paly.  use them as a template and make minor changes to them to create another "build" for the Paly. Thats all I have time for right now.
#29 stargazer_dragon May 06, 2010 12:58:26	Most of your points have ben gone over a few times now but the dex for 2 handed fighting I agree with, I always prefered dex weapon finess rout whith all of my char that used 2 weapon fighting, I would live to see a dex based fighter class (sword dancer comes to mind) though I will probably make one myself before they ever make one. though admitedly if I both making one I will designe it to fit my old 3.5 char anyhows yea a dex/nimble fighting style (even if given to the rouge or ANY class) would be cool hybrid/MC would allow me to shape the class as desired.