Lowering dual wield level

[Zanven]

Dual-wield is something that D&D characters can do since level 1 with different degree of success related to how many two-weapon fighting feats the character has, which have very high requirements. For this I propose lowering it somewhere around level 10-20.

[Selveem]

Dual-wield is something that D&D characters can do since level 1 with different degree of success related to how many two-weapon fighting feats the character has, which have very high requirements. For this I propose lowering it somewhere around level 10-20.

I know this is slightly diverging from the original topic, but since you mentioned the feats: it would be nice if those requirements were lowered, too. Because dual wield seems to level up a lot slower than your attacks and weapons (though, admittedly much faster than it used to), it takes quite a long time of engaging in genocide for your skill to get to the level needed to train feats. Especially if, as I suspect, training the improved two-weapon fighting causes you to do more damage, but does not count to your dual wield count increase.

For instance:

First Attack (counts towards weapon skill increase)
Offhand Attack (counts towards offhand weapon and dual wield skill increases)
Second Attack (counts towards weapon and second attack skill increase)
Third Attack-Fifth Attack (as above, but for third attack through fifth attack skill increases)
2nd Offhand Attack [from improved two-weapon fighting] (counts towards offhand weapon increase....)

Does dual wield get a skill increase from the above attack?

[Anthalas]

Here's the problem with having it at lower levels:

For using the dual wield skill, (before feats) you get -6 and -8 penalties for main and offhand attacks respectively. Having the skill at lower levels will be nothing but crippling.

I understand why it is at higher levels.

You could put it on the ranger skills where they get 3rd attack and remove the journeyman requirement for two weapon fighting but I suspect that this would unbalance the game.

[Zanven]

And that is the point, you can save feats and stats points to be able to dual-wield at early/mid-levels or doing at later levels or not doing at all, the way is now you are sort of forced to take that decision.

[Hrosskell]

Personally I like the idea of having it lowered to 10-15-ish. While making Cahir, my 2H-focused fighter, I felt that every step of the levelling process was meaningful and could literally see the improvements to his ability as a 2H-using warrior. As a scrapping duelist rogue, an agile and deadly fighter, or a quick and cunning ranger, you have to wait and work and work and hope without ever seeing any reward show up on the score sheet--and eventually it gets tiresome, and may even prevent people from varying things up. Anything that makes the game more rewarding as you go sounds like a good idea to me.

Of course there's the idea that you still have your main hand, and the various feats that go along with it, to fulfill your days with the entire way until dual wield, but this isn't media--less isn't more! More is!

[Selveem]

Here's the problem with having it at lower levels:

For using the dual wield skill, (before feats) you get -6 and -8 penalties for main and offhand attacks respectively. Having the skill at lower levels will be nothing but crippling.

I understand why it is at higher levels.

You could put it on the ranger skills where they get 3rd attack and remove the journeyman requirement for two weapon fighting but I suspect that this would unbalance the game.

I forgot to reply to this post, but your numbers are a bit off. This link has a nice table to break it down for you. Basically, you gave in your example nearly the worst case scenario. I think you were looking for -4 (primary) and -8 (offhand) which is normal when offhand weapon is light.

Realistically, this is all the more reason to have two-weapon fighting feat earlier on. If a character could train it earlier, they would only be suffering a -2 to primary and offhand attacks. That's easily countered with decent strength (14 strength, to be exact).