PDA

View Full Version : [4E] Whirling Barbarian clarifications



Freylorn
2009-12-23, 08:42 PM
So I'll be honest - this is coming from me wanting to play Belkar in a game. Yes, he's a ranger/barbarian - mostly ranger - but the whirling barbarian seems like a lot of fun, and fits his style pretty well I'd say. Mutable fluff and all that.

But when I get right down to it, I just don't understand exactly how the offhand damage is supposed to work for the Whirling powers. I mean, going by what seems to me to be RAW, the offhand weapon never actually attacks - so enhancement bonus, etc. all come from the main hand.

Let's make up a power right now - let's say it deals 3W + 2W (offhand) + Strength modifier. The usual keywords (primal, weapon) are there. Since it's all in one attack line, am I correct in assuming that (were I wielding, let's say, two +3 bastard swords) the +3 enhancement would only apply once, since enhancement bonuses don't stack? Would this not also apply to feats such as Weapon Focus?

And if this is the case, following this train of thought, would it not be optimal to hold a waraxe (d12) in my offhand for the entirety of my career? I have no need to be PROFICIENT with it, after all, nor does it ever need to be magical - its sole purpose is to lend it's d12 might to my offhand weapon die. That's it.

Is that honestly how these powers are meant to work? I get the impression it isn't, but for the life of me I can't figure out how one could read it any other way. If I'm wrong, please correct me and show me where it's said otherwise.

Thank you ahead of time!

Jack_Banzai
2009-12-23, 08:55 PM
If a power indicates that there is a separate attack using your off-hand weapon, then you use the proficiency bonus and various other bonuses that pertain to that weapon. In all other instances, use the attack and damage value for your main hand weapon.

Freylorn
2009-12-23, 08:58 PM
But that's just the thing - the whirling barbarian powers don't fit into either of those two categories.

They use both weapons, yes - but as one attack, with one attack/hit line, not two separate attacks like other dual wielders. And since both are combined onto one line, it would lead me to assume that feat/enhancement bonuses would only apply once, thus making whatever's in your off hand TOTALLY useless aside from it's actual weapon die size.

Jack_Banzai
2009-12-23, 09:07 PM
But that's just the thing - the whirling barbarian powers don't fit into either of those two categories.

They use both weapons, yes - but as one attack, with one attack/hit line, not two separate attacks like other dual wielders. And since both are combined onto one line, it would lead me to assume that feat/enhancement bonuses would only apply once, thus making whatever's in your off hand TOTALLY useless aside from it's actual weapon die size.

After reading every Barbarian attack power in Primal Power, yes, I am forced to conclude that you are correct.

CarpeGuitarrem
2009-12-23, 09:08 PM
Yeah......this looks really weird.

It would seem that the only thing it's good for is the weapon die, and any enhancement bonus attached to it, plus any special magic item powers.

Jack_Banzai
2009-12-23, 09:09 PM
2010 Rules Updates, here we come. *sigh

Freylorn
2009-12-23, 09:12 PM
I wouldn't think this worthy of a full-blown update/errata, honestly. A bullet in one of their FAQs would be just fine. Some sort of concrete ruling on this kind of power.

Jack_Banzai
2009-12-23, 09:15 PM
Well not by itself, no. But since periodic updates are coming out and there seem to be no shortage of powers that require rewrite, perhaps we'll see something.

Freylorn
2009-12-23, 09:18 PM
Meh, either way, as long as this is clarified.

It just seems to me that laying out a blanket rule for this kind of attack/hit line style would be much easier (for both them AND us) than making an errata'd version of every single barbarian dial-wield power.

I just can't help but shake that this is in no way how they intended these powers to work. I mean, to have proficiency in your offhand not even matter is... well, it just doesn't seem right, y'know?

Asbestos
2009-12-23, 09:27 PM
Cynic's opinion: Its a stealth fix to make up for all TWF characters being 'required' to spend extra wealth to stay 'on par' with their attack values. Disclaimer: I have never seen this be a problem.


Anyway it seems while you could have a mundane waraxe in your off-hand for your entire career... It isn't very wise since you can still benefit from the magical properties of the off-hand weapon.

Break
2009-12-23, 11:19 PM
Cynic's opinion: Its a stealth fix to make up for all TWF characters being 'required' to spend extra wealth to stay 'on par' with their attack values. Disclaimer: I have never seen this be a problem.


Anyway it seems while you could have a mundane waraxe in your off-hand for your entire career... It isn't very wise since you can still benefit from the magical properties of the off-hand weapon.

I've actually seen it as a rather big issue for any TWFers, or any character that uses a separate weapon and implement, so the interpretation of just using the damage dice may hold water.

But yeah, no one really knows what the RAW is, but the DMs I've played under at least allow adding the offhand's enhancement bonus to its [W] for whirlibarb powers.

Gralamin
2009-12-23, 11:27 PM
I've actually seen it as a rather big issue for any TWFers, or any character that uses a separate weapon and implement, so the interpretation of just using the damage dice may hold water.

But yeah, no one really knows what the RAW is, but the DMs I've played under at least allow adding the offhand's enhancement bonus to its [W] for whirlibarb powers.

The RAW is the lower enhancement would not apply. Weapon Focus also only applies once, as does pretty much any other bonus.

tbarrie
2009-12-24, 12:50 AM
And if this is the case, following this train of thought, would it not be optimal to hold a waraxe (d12) in my offhand for the entirety of my career? I have no need to be PROFICIENT with it, after all, nor does it ever need to be magical - its sole purpose is to lend it's d12 might to my offhand weapon die. That's it.

I can't imagine many DMs would let you use an off-hand weapon you're not even proficient with without imposing some sort of penalty. But other than that, it does seem that Whirling Barbarians sort of want a high-proficiency main weapon and high-damage off-hand weapon. It's a bit odd.

Sir Homeslice
2009-12-24, 12:55 AM
I can't imagine many DMs would let you use an off-hand weapon you're not even proficient with without imposing some sort of penalty.

You mean like an attack penalty when using that weapon? 'Cause that's perfectly fine, seeing as how you don't use it to make attack rolls.

Freylorn
2009-12-24, 09:23 AM
I can't imagine many DMs would let you use an off-hand weapon you're not even proficient with without imposing some sort of penalty. But other than that, it does seem that Whirling Barbarians sort of want a high-proficiency main weapon and high-damage off-hand weapon. It's a bit odd.

Why would they impose a penalty? The penalty would be the lack of proficiency bonus. It just doesn't make a difference in this case.

tbarrie
2009-12-24, 09:28 AM
You mean like an attack penalty when using that weapon?

An attack penalty when using a Barbarian two-weapon power when you're not proficient with the off-hand weapon would be a sensible approach, yes.


'Cause that's perfectly fine, seeing as how you don't use it to make attack rolls.

Umm, yes? That was kind of the point.

Aron Times
2009-12-24, 09:34 AM
There are powers with no attack rolls but have damage rolls. For example, the level 5 fighter stance, Rain of Steel, deals [W] damage to creatures that start their turn adjacent to the fighter. It deals [W] + the weapon's enhancement bonus + other static modifiers.

The RAI is probably that the off-hand damage rolls for Whirling Barbarian powers use the off-hand weapon's static damage mods, including the enhancement bonus. This makes more sense that using the main hand weapon's static mods for both damage rolls.

Hal
2009-12-24, 09:42 AM
See, I've always interpretted [W] as being Damage die + Damage modifier. For example, 4 [W] on a +3 longsword is 4[d8+3] or 4d8 + 12.

KillianHawkeye
2009-12-24, 09:58 AM
See, I've always interpretted [W] as being Damage die + Damage modifier. For example, 4 [W] on a +3 longsword is 4[d8+3] or 4d8 + 12.

That is plainly false.

A +3 longsword used with a 4[W] power deals 4d8+3 (plus other bonuses). That much is clear from the PHB.

Jack_Banzai
2009-12-24, 01:01 PM
See, I've always interpretted [W] as being Damage die + Damage modifier. For example, 4 [W] on a +3 longsword is 4[d8+3] or 4d8 + 12.

I think I see why your avatar is a die with 20s on every side now.

tbarrie
2009-12-24, 04:43 PM
Why would they impose a penalty? The penalty would be the lack of proficiency bonus. It just doesn't make a difference in this case.

You just answered your own question.

Sir Homeslice
2009-12-24, 10:50 PM
An attack penalty when using a Barbarian two-weapon power when you're not proficient with the off-hand weapon would be a sensible approach, yes.

Sure, but you don't make attack rolls with your offhand weapon.

CarpeGuitarrem
2009-12-25, 02:16 AM
You know, thinking about it...maybe holding a high-damage weapon which you're not proficient in in your offhand...is the intended effect? I mean, we're talking about a barbarian here, so maybe the point is, there's not really that much finesse to their approach.