Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 JonJones Jul 24, 2014 0:47:58	The characters from the starter set all would be better served by using two shortswords and or handaxes.   So:   Halfling rogue - only uses one short sword but would gain two attacks and deal extra damage + also two bites at the cherry for sneak attack, can kill more than one target Elf wizard - only uses one short sword but would gain a free extra attack with two shortswords, can kill more than one target   Human archer - uses a great sword, but would gain +1 to hit and +1 extra damage with two shortswords, can kill more than one target.    Human Great axe - if used two hand axes would gain + 1/2 average damage + can choose more than 1 target. Can throw 2 axes rather than a Javelin for more damage, two attacks rather than one. Dwarf Cleric can uses two hand axes to cause more damage and kill more than 1 target. Can throw 2 axes. Note this is not because he is a dwarf, any cleric can do it. You can choose a mace etc for a weapon  or a hand axe that deals the same damage but can also be dual wielded and thrown (in pairs)   Of course it would be very boring for every character to wield the same weapon and fight in exactly the same way. However this is what the rules of the game are encouraging.   The main problem for me is that dual wielding has been balanced with two handed weapons but unlike wielding a shield there is no proficiency for dual wielding so there is no opportunity cost for some character e.g Wizard or Rogue and it deals the same damage as two handed weapons that are unavailable for other character e.g Cleric. This is strange in a game that you need proficiency with a deck of cards or drive a cart (effectively).   I understand that two- handed weapons deal more damage for some characters (with multiple attacks) at high level. However this just means the options is still not balanced across the levels. The platonic ideal is for weapon choice to be equally valid at all levels.
#2 JohnLynch Jul 24, 2014 1:38:51	If you're interested in min/maxing then yes you could do that. The first thing I'd ask for though is for you to stop and if you don't then I'd ask you to leave.
(Reply to #2) JonJones	JohnLynch wrote:
#4 Novacat Jul 24, 2014 2:00:23	And yet, the number crunchers have shown that the best damage dealer, by a wide margin, is the great-weapon fighter, not the dual-wielder.
#5 JonJones Jul 24, 2014 2:51:10	As I addresed?   Yup at very high level with multiple attacks and possibly the Great weapon feat then great weapon deals more damage. This is also not great.   It does nothing to address the fact that dual wielding is more powerful at low level It does nothing to adress the fact that for some characters to dual wiled there is no opportunity cost - e.g anyone without a shield proficiency. So every Wizard should dual wield daggers at least.    It does nothing to address the fact dual wielders should be an equally balanced choice and be as good as great weapon fighter ( not better or worse) at high and low level. A quick cludge is to give dual wielding proficiency to Fighter's and Rangers and let others pick it up as sub class features for Valor Bards, Assassin Rogues and Clerics of War, Paladins of the Wild etc. and have only 1 roll to hit but roll both sets of damage dice on  a hit. The option to dual wield would then deal the same damage at high and low level as a two handed sword. Not better or worse. However for some it is more "realistic" for two weapons to be twice as fast and require two attack rolls, so that adventurers fight like the little fat bullied guy at school who whrilwinds his arms...In the real world hitting someone requires an opening and having two weapons or two fists is not faster. In other words a jab and cross is in no way faster than two jabs.
#6 Jenks Jul 24, 2014 2:56:21	If the difference is +1 attack and/or damage, then the rules arent encouraging anything. +1 attack/damage does no an every character optimal strategy make.   Now if you somehow squeezed 3 extra attack or like 4-5 extra damage from it, then we would have a serious discrepency. But just finding the literal optimal choice and saying it's too good no matter what is kind of silly. Put it in context. Is the bonus material?   I will give you a story that highlights my point. One of my accounting proffessors told us of a time, early on in his auditing career, where he found a $40,000 discrepency in the budget. $40,000 dollars is a discrepency sure, but when he brought it to his manager he replied with "Is it material?" What he meant was, is that a significant part of the budget? Sure 40,000 dollars seems like a lot of money out of context, but the budget was over 30 million dollars, making that 40k about .1% of the budget.   So in the end, even though a discrepancy was found, it wasn't big enough to actually make a difference. The same can be said by most of the options you present. The TWF might produce slightly better results, but they are not better enough by a wide enough margin to actually cause people to double think what they want to do.    TLDR: Just because there is an advantage doesn't mean it's big enough to matter. Put the advantage in context and you will see it's smaller than it seems.
#7 pukunui Jul 24, 2014 3:05:50	A dual-wielding wizard won't be able to cast spells, since s/he needs a hand free for the somatic components.
#8 BoldItalic Jul 24, 2014 3:25:39	One situation where it may be better to be wielding a greataxe rather than two shortswords is when you get an AoO. You don't get an off-hand attack when you take a reaction. In that situation, is 1d12 better than 1d6? Of course it is. Do monsters know that, and might they take advantage of that knowledge? Yes, some will.
#9 BoldItalic Jul 24, 2014 3:39:16	JonJones wrote:
#10 JohnLynch Jul 24, 2014 4:10:30	JonJones wrote:
#11 MrHotter Jul 24, 2014 5:08:48	I don't see dual weilding as the 'best option' for all low level characters. Keep in mind that the second weapon uses the players bonus action, so they may have a better option available.   For the wizard (or other no shield casters): Like Pukunui said, they need a hand free for spells that require a somatic or material component.   For clerics (or other shield proficient casters): Many players would prefer to have more survivablity by using a shield and relying on spells. They'll also need a free hand for spells with an S and/or M requirment. They may end up with just a shield and a free hand for casting.   For rogue: A second weapon is not a bad idea. Starting at second level they can use their bonus action for dash, disengage, or hide, so the second attack won't always be their best choice.    for fighter: this is more about what they want the character to do. If they want to be a tank type, they're less worried about damage. If they want to do damage, then both two handed and two weapon fighting both have advantages they may want to use.     Previous versions did have a lot of disadvantages to dual weilding (that you had to take several feats before it was worth using), but it seem WotC and the players did not want that. If it's not an optional rule in the DMG, I would not object to the DM house ruling that a player would need a two weapon proficiency to use a weapon in the off hand.
#12 JonJones Jul 24, 2014 6:09:54	Thank you for the catch on the Wizard. Though if they are casting spells they are pretty much not attacking with either one or two weapons?   It also makes things like the dart almost worthless, why throw one dart when you can throw two daggers at the same range and damage? I don't think anyone for a minute was suggesting that anyone was going to come to anyones table and tell them how to play! I was simply pointing out what was optimal from reading the rules in a discussion about the rules on a rules forum? So if i was discussing cheese on a cheese forum I would not really think it a valid criticism to say "anyone coming around here to my house telling me what cheese to eat would be thrown out..." I get it. You don't want to play with min/maxers. Neither do I to be frank. However the skill set that means you can read and understand a set of rules does not automatically make you a min/maxer. However for me this a problem with the rules that I would like addressed and I pointed this out so that it can be fixed?   Is the problem significant, well +1 to hit and damage is about the same as a feat so quite significant? it is also +2 to hit and damage for the archer at 4th level. For a rogue it about +3 damage but more importantly a second chance to sneak attack.    p.s There is no dual wielding proficiency, I was suggesting that one would be a good idea to stop everyone and there pet dog from doing it.
#13 demon_idol Jul 24, 2014 5:40:29	JonJones wrote:
#14 UngeheuerLich Jul 24, 2014 6:47:39	I think, dual wielding should just be a martial weapon proficiency. I just houseruled it in, so now only the fighter of the basic set can do it at level 1.   To balance it out, I do add the buckler to the light armor list. A small shield that you just put into your offhand, which most people should be able to do. (_You could also put it onto the simple weapon list... maybe I´ll adjust it right now ;) )   I also add the TWF option to the rogue´s cunning action option so that a rogue at level 2 can do TWF again, so he can compete with a fighter´s actiion surge if he wants.
#15 Paraxis Jul 24, 2014 7:11:59	Spellcasters don't need a free hand because sheathing and drawing a weapon is not an action, so they can put up one weapon to cast if they need to or draw a weapon into the off hand if they need to.   I ask the players who choose to use suboptimal gear to either fix it or leave the table not the other way around.
#16 Karnos Jul 24, 2014 7:44:15	Paraxis wrote:
#17 Paraxis Jul 24, 2014 7:47:35	Karnos wrote:
#18 Karnos Jul 24, 2014 8:11:44	I agree, which is why I wouldn't do that either.
(Reply to #14) kanageddaamen	UngeheuerLich wrote:
#20 Dastion Jul 24, 2014 8:41:37	The whole 'everyone should dual wield' thing is something I've run into before.  But it has limitations.   -For Clerics they probably would prefer a Shield unless they choose a domain that encourages melee fighting (Divine Strike is once per your turn.  And there is no guarantee all Domains will have it).   -It's extremely effective for Elven Wizards at low levels since they have so few spells (which is fitting - I like that their Elven training benefits them), but around 3-5 with the big jump in daily spells and scaling Cantrips going into melee willingly isn't worth the risk.   -Archer classes would be ideal for switching to dual wield (like the archer pregen) except you can only interact with one object for free.  That means that for the Archer to switch to a melee weapon he has to drop his bow and draw a single weapon.  He wouldn't be able to dual wield until the next turn unless he used his action to draw the second weapon.   -Darts are much cheaper and lighter than daggers.  Plus, you can only throw two daggers in one round (assuming you had both drawn already).  After that you'll only draw and throw one as part of your attack.
#21 spelley Jul 24, 2014 8:46:25	Dastion wrote:
(Reply to #10) Overpromises	JohnLynch wrote:
(Reply to #19) UngeheuerLich	kanageddaamen wrote:
(Reply to #23) Overpromises	UngeheuerLich wrote:
#25 kanageddaamen Jul 24, 2014 9:04:54	UngeheuerLich wrote:
#26 Proletheus Jul 24, 2014 9:03:44	MrHotter wrote:
#27 Dastion Jul 24, 2014 10:20:10	spelley wrote:
#28 Eric888 Jul 24, 2014 11:03:48	Dual-wielding is not free.   Wizards and clerics using cantrips would usually outperform dual wielding, except in cases where you are fighting large numbers of grouped up 2 HP monsters. And in those situations you should be standing behind the fighter anyway.   Also drawing/stowing is not a free action in the sense that you can only do one per turn. Since casters need a hand free to cast spells, this can be cumbersome.   Rogues will soon have access to bucklers, like in... three weeks. Calm down. Also dual-wielding has poor synergy with rogues because cunning action costs a bonus action.
#29 kanageddaamen Jul 24, 2014 11:11:27	Eric888 wrote:
#30 mellored Jul 24, 2014 11:37:39	Yes, it's always best for you to use both of your hands instead of just 1. Unless you need to grab something.     Clerics get shields, and they should use them, since they will often not use weapons.   Wizards need a free hand, or impliment, so they arn't dual wielding. Though there's little reason to not carry a weapon in your off-hand.   At level 1, TWF is very much a win for fighters, assuming you second wind out of combat.   But at level 2, with action surge, they fall behind 2-handers. Expanded crit range favors GWF over TWF style. Ability boost favors TWF style. Multi-attack at level 5 puts 2-handed ahead and it stays there for the rest of the game.   And that's excluding the shield option.     Which leaves rogues as the only class that should always dual wield.  Though it competes with their cunning action, so they won't always get to.
#31 Xeviat-DM Jul 24, 2014 11:58:04	I've always prefered TWFing to cost a feat, but since feats are not standard, I can see why this is an issue. A Dexterity component could be easy to implement as a way of limiting which characters do it; maybe a -2 penalty when you TWF that is reduced by your Dexterity bonus?   How does TWF fall behind GWF with Action Surge? By my understanding, you can still TWF on your Action Surge, or are you saying Action Surge doesn't give you another bonus action?
#32 mellored Jul 24, 2014 12:10:39	Xeviat-DM wrote:
#33 Joe_the_Rat Jul 24, 2014 12:21:01	Of all, I'd look at the archer and rogue for the best candidates in the starter.   The rogue has been covered.  The dex-focused archer, while delayed a die of damage on weapon switch, would gain some early level benefit from applying dex to hit and damage (for finesse weapons) over relying on strength.
#34 Proletheus Jul 24, 2014 12:22:31	mellored wrote:
#35 mellored Jul 24, 2014 12:54:12	Proletheus wrote:
#36 Sifaka Jul 24, 2014 13:06:51	In general at 1st level the halfling rogue with two weapons is the highest damage in the game.  But this is not absolute.
#37 Proletheus Jul 24, 2014 13:22:22	mellored wrote:
(Reply to #36) kanageddaamen	Sifaka wrote:
#39 Psikerlord Jul 24, 2014 15:08:53	JonJones wrote:
#40 JohnLynch Jul 24, 2014 17:15:35	Overpowered wrote:
#41 Sturmunddrang Jul 24, 2014 23:05:31	Karnos wrote:
#42 Ramzour Jul 25, 2014 1:41:52	At level 1, this is what it looks like:   Greatsword: one attack, higher damage, easier to swap to a bow Longsword+Shield: one attack, average damage, boost to AC 2x Short Swords: two attacks, lower damage, cannot easily switch to a bow Longsword+nothing (Dueling Fighting Style option): one attack, average damage with a bonus, can easily switch to 2H for 1d10 damage, or draw another weapon for TWF.    Seems pretty balanced to me. Are the DPR values exactly the same? No, but there is a good tradeoff between the styles.
#43 Siphersh Jul 25, 2014 4:20:55	JonJones wrote:
(Reply to #24) UngeheuerLich	Overpromises wrote:
(Reply to #25) UngeheuerLich	kanageddaamen wrote:
#46 thespaceinvader Jul 25, 2014 8:31:03	Siphersh wrote:
#47 mellored Jul 25, 2014 7:51:51	A roleplaying idea... An avenger of the raven queen who got stronger the closer to death she was, as she could draw more power from her god. She was quite cranky at full health.   Led to one of the most overpower and broken character in 4e.
(Reply to #44) Overpromises	UngeheuerLich wrote:
(Reply to #48) UngeheuerLich	Overpromises wrote: