>>15473302>Rogues and fighters can't duel-wield like a ranger can truly duel-wield.
In other words, "I dun't get two attacks like I did in 3.5! Only that is truely duel-weilding!" Multi-attack deul-weilding isn`t the only way to handle it, and frankly I find it a bit stupid. "Attacking" is already extremely abstracted, not to mention how "2 Swords = Double the Attacks!" doesn't actually make sense.>And why can't I duel-wield with my warlord? Or my cleric?
You fucking can. ANY character in 4E can weild two weapons. The benifit of this is that they can choose which one to use with any given attack, giving more options every round, especially if you have tow magic weapons with different properties. As well, it's trivial to pick up the Two-Weapon Fighting feat to gain a damage boost while weilding a second weapon, which represents offensivly using the second weapon better than "IMA GOT TWO O' THEM I GET TWO ATTACKS!" (although personally I think it should give +1 damage per [W] rather than a flat +1). And after that, you can take Two-Weapon Defense, which gives you an AC bonus from parrying.
Basiclly, those classes only can't "deul-weild" if you're so anal that you won't concider anything other than "TWO-WEP, TWO ROLL!" to be "true deul-weilding".>Or why can't I use a bow with most powers even though there is no reason I can't?
What "most powers"? Do you mean "Melee Powers"? Are you retarded? And what does thsi have to do with deul-weilding? Are you just adding random complaints now?