4e TWF?

[shadow_archmagi]

I saw something under ranger, but I've been unable to find the NORMAL rules for two weapon fighting.

Someone please bash me over the head for being an idiot and not finding it, then explain it so I don't have to.

[Azerian Kelimon]

I saw something under ranger, but I've been unable to find the NORMAL rules for two weapon fighting.

Someone please bash me over the head for being an idiot and not finding it, then explain it so I don't have to.

Nope, only rangers get TWF fun. There is a feat for representing TWF that lets you add +1 to damage, and a TWDefense that add +1 shield bonus to AC and reflex, but to DO attacks with two weapons, you need to be a ranger.

[Artanis]

As far as I can tell, there aren't any because the way 4e is set up makes them irrelevant. Since everything is done via powers, dual-wielding would only actually affect anything when a power says it does, at which point the power explains what to do with it anyways.


Bah, ninja'd

[Saph]

I saw something under ranger, but I've been unable to find the NORMAL rules for two weapon fighting.

There aren't any. You can hold two weapons at once if you want, but you can only attack with one of them. You can pick up the Two-Weapon-Fighting feats to give you a +1 to damage, Ref, and AC, but you still can only attack with one of them.

As far as I know, the only way to use Two-Weapon-Fighting and gain any meaningful use out of it (beyond 'choose which weapon to attack with each turn) is to be a Ranger.

- Saph

[FinalJustice]

Multiclass as ranger and take some of its powers wouldn't suffice?

[Azerian Kelimon]

Multiclass as ranger and take some of its powers wouldn't suffice?

That's usually a gimp. See, the base class is going to get exactly zilch use out of the second weapon when you're not using ranger powers. So why do it?

[Talya]

I so hate this game.

[Crow]

Some of the Ranger TWF powers are so good that archery rangers should pick them up just to have. Multiclass to ranger looks like an attractive option for a TWFer.

I'll be doing a Ranger/Wizard though =)

[Bearonet]

Getting bonuses from your second weapon sounds like Two-Weapon Fighting. In fact, adding damage over time (adding AB would have been a little more appropriate, but damage is an acceptable abstraction) and increasing defense (offhand blades are largely for parrying) is surprisingly realistic!

[Reinboom]

That's usually a gimp. See, the base class is going to get exactly zilch use out of the second weapon when you're not using ranger powers. So why do it?

Interesting that one of the earlier optimization builds for 4E uses "be another class [Rogue] and multiclass as a ranger".


I so hate this game.

I like cats.

[SadisticFishing]

Meh, two weapon fighting has never made sense, really. You don't attack twice as hard with two weapons - quite the opposite, in fact.

+1 damage, +1 ac, and +1 reflex save makes sense to represent how training with two weapons that doesn't consume your career (IE being a twf ranger).

[Rutee]

I so hate this game.

I actually thought you would agree with this. It's more realistic, /less/ gamist. I dislike that they went Errol Flynn, but only because their other option was Miyamoto Musashi. Without that comparison, Errol Flynn is perfectly acceptable.

Things I have learned: Errol Flynn is in Firefox's dictionary!

[Cybren]

I actually thought you would agree with this. It's more realistic, /less/ gamist. I dislike that they went Errol Flynn, but only because their other option was Miyamoto Musashi. Without that comparison, Errol Flynn is perfectly acceptable.

Things I have learned: Errol Flynn is in Firefox's dictionary!

huh? Errol Flynn was an actor and Miyamoto Musashi was a real person....

(besides i think it's more impressive that Musashi kills you with his scabbard/a rock/flexing then with two swords at once)

[Rutee]

huh? Errol Flynn was an actor and Miyamoto Musashi was a real person....

(besides i think it's more impressive that Musashi kills you with his scabbard/a rock/flexing then with two swords at once)

It's about style recognized, in this case. Errol Flynn, IIRC, uses the dagger as a shield, not a second attack, in his films. My understanding is that when people dual wielded historically, this is effectively what they did. They did not use two swords, they used a long and short weapon,w ith the short weapon serving either to tie the enemy's weapon/shield up while the long weapon delivered the decisive blow"

Yes, I agree in full that Musashi is more impressive. Like I said, going the Errol Flynn route is only unimpressive compared to their alternative, because it's quite an alternative. Inability to balance that, well. It sucks, but DnD isn't alone in it either (Most RPG Systems I've seen it have dual wielding do things like 'apply the best of both stats, besides damage', at best. It still turns out pretty cool-ly. Also, Musashi is 'real' in the sense that Robin Hood or Guan Yu is. We know he probably existed, and that he was an important figure, but his feats are probably exaggerated. Which is cool, since the exaggerated version is cooler XD

[Cybren]

It's about style recognized, in this case. Errol Flynn, IIRC, uses the dagger as a shield, not a second attack, in his films.

Yes, I agree in full that Musashi is more impressive. Like I said, going the Errol Flynn route is only unimpressive compared to their alternative, because it's quite an alternative. Inability to balance that, well. It sucks, but DnD isn't alone in it either (Most RPG Systems I've seen it have dual wielding do things like 'apply the best of both stats, besides damage', at best. It still turns out pretty cool-ly.
(mecfw-my expertise comes from wikipedia)
well in traditional fencing styles the offhand held a small buckler, cloak or dagger for parrying. It allowed one to parry and counter attack immediately. The thing is though it only really works against weapons of a certain size. It's kind of silly that you could parry a maul with a dagger, for example.

But other than a few fencing schools and the occasional giant (it's said that Musashi was only able to fight with the daisho like that because of his stature) "two-weapon fighting" was never used, and even in those instances those are all dueling situations, and not battlefield combat. I'm fine with the archetype restricted to rangers, really.

[Tengu]

Two-weapon fighting in 4e is better than in 3.x, but still weak (unless you're a ranger) - I'm fine with that though, because I think huge-arse two-handed weapons are much cooler.

I also like that 4e seems to balance two-handed weapons and sword'n'board, while in 3.0 everyone went with one-handed and a shield while in 3.5 two-handers were the only option.


I so hate this game.

Thank you for sharing this valuable piece of information with us. If you didn't say so here, nobody would ever knew.

[Rutee]

(mecfw-my expertise comes from wikipedia)
well in traditional fencing styles the offhand held a small buckler, cloak or dagger for parrying. It allowed one to parry and counter attack immediately. The thing is though it only really works against weapons of a certain size. It's kind of silly that you could parry a maul with a dagger, for example.

But other than a few fencing schools and the occasional giant (it's said that Musashi was only able to fight with the daisho like that because of his stature) "two-weapon fighting" was never used, and even in those instances those are all dueling situations, and not battlefield combat. I'm fine with the archetype restricted to rangers, really.

Oh, size was a factor. Interesting, and somewhat more sensible. I actually would prefer it the other way, but yeah, I guess I'm fine with this version too.

[Talya]

I actually thought you would agree with this. It's more realistic, /less/ gamist.

If the feats for TWF were the only TWF abilities in the game (and perhaps they did a little bit more), then I wouldn't mind so much. But the ranger two weapon fighting does it for real, and blows away all the pretenders who just have the feats.

I don't like how inflexible and uncustomizable this game is. Despite how everyone cringes when a comparison to a computer game is made, it really does feel like an MMO in its class design...in particular, World of Warcraft. Each class is going to always have a certain feel to it, and they can't venture outside the boundaries of their class. Like the talent-system in WoW, there is some customizability, but there's only going to be a tiny bit of variety inside each class, there's not a lot of build options.

In 3.5 you have options using multiclassing and feat choices to make almost any idea you want are there. Some of them were not the most effective and needed some mechanical work, but the options were still there.

Try making a dexterity based fighter in 4e that can dual weild as well as a ranger. It's just not possible. It's simple to the point of simplistic in 3.5, but in 4e is locked down. They've made certain concepts entirely the domain of particular classes, and blocked them out. Then they cripple multiclassing to prevent you from mixing and matching as much as you'd like.

I like building a character to be a puzzle with a thousand peices, totally customized to my liking. I like to be able to make anything with the system. While it's true there aren't any "splatbooks" out for 4e yet, I don't see that splatbooks would change this design philosophy any. I might end up with new base classes that better suit what I'm trying to build, but I'll still be stuck with that class.

Just like in WoW, if you want to sneak around, you have to play a rogue (or maybe a druid), you can't build a sneaky warrior or hunter. It's just not possible, the game doesn't allow that type of customization. 4e is built on the same principles. You're being given a few cookie-cutter archtypes with limited flexibility inside each one, and that's it.

[Attilargh]

Hey, a crazy idea: What if, instead of always comparing this to WoW, people would point out similarities to, say, first edition D&D or something?

I assume you're not familiar with the Multiclass feats, then?

[Rutee]

{Scrubbed}

[Cute_Riolu]

Snip

As much as I agree with everything you're saying, obvious flamer is obvious. There are better ways to state such things.

[Rutee]

There's really only one even questionable statement up there.

[Talya]

First of all, Rutee, can the condescension and personal attacks. This is getting ridiculous. You certainly don't know anything more than anyone else here.

Secondly, I actually have the 4e material at my disposal. I'm not just speaking from what I've read here. Rangers are the only class that gets full dual weilding ability - as in, the ability to make attacks with both weapons.

We aren't discussing equipment. I have agreed in other posts that 4e handles equipment better than 3e. But that's a minor issue. 4e doesn't have nearly the character customizability 3e does.

I've played MMOs for 10 years. I even like them. And 4e's class design is almost exactly like World of Warcraft's.

I'm not sure you're point about shock trooper/spiked chain tripper. Those types of things were done far better in 3e. "Mobile caster?" I don't even get the point of that. There's nothing any spellcaster can do better in 4e than they could do in 3e.

"Who cares?" I care!

3.5 didn't suck. Multiclassing wasn't a trap. It's the most fun mechanical system I've played. There were flaws, but no game has ever had the ability to make a character a puzzle customized with a thousand peices like it did. And 4e never will. The character class is a closed system. You get your own class features, and at most a limited number of features from a second class. It's multiclassing functionality and insistance that various classes don't "step on each others toes" means it will never have the versatility in character design 3e did. It's part of their design philosophy. it's just a bad philosophy.

The stealth example was a warcraft one, not a 4e one. Just like you can't make a stealthy hunter in WoW (no, night elves don't count), yuo can't make that dextrous dual weilding fighter in 4e.

And my god, "Nerd rage?" You're the one screaming foul at your precious system that shall not be criticized by anyone actually has some valid complaints levelled at it. I've got no emotion invested in this. So how about cutting the personal attacks and condescension. This is ridiculous. I'm really beginning to wish this board had an ignore function. You're not contributing any actual content with posts like this, just speaking down to people who certainly aren't below you.

[pasko77]

I saw something under ranger, but I've been unable to find the NORMAL rules for two weapon fighting.

Someone please bash me over the head for being an idiot and not finding it, then explain it so I don't have to.


The same exact feeling i had.
I also find interesting that i misread the thread title as "4e WTF?".

I am really punched at the stomach by the new edition.

[Bearonet]

Talya, if you think that keeping classes from stomping all over each others' toes (like the druid to the fighter) is bad design, I really don't know what to tell you.

[Tengu]

There were flaws, but no game has ever had the ability to make a character a puzzle customized with a thousand peices like it did.

Except, you know, open RPGs based on skills, not classes, especially games like GURPS, Big Eyes Small Mouth or Mutants and Masteminds, where you can create your own powers and therefore the combinations and customization options are infinite? DND 3.x did a half-assed job that combined most of bad elements of class-based and skill-based games, and few of the good ones. DND 4e knows it's a class-based game and tries to fit the role best.

Not to mention that there are more options in core 4e than in core 3.5.

[Saph]

Not to mention that there are more options in core 4e than in core 3.5.

What? No there aren't. The whole point of 4e is that it cuts down on the flexibility and versatility the 3.5 classes had in favour of making the system simpler and more balanced. I know this because immediately upon getting my 4e books, I went down the list of my favourite character abilities and said to myself, "Can't do that . . . can't do that . . . can sort of do that, not very well . . . can't do that . . . meh, I guess if I want to play this I'm going to have to change my priorities." If you want to read the full discussion, it's here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=82037).

Whether you think the whole thing's a good trade or not will depend on preference, but there's no arguing that 3.5 > 4e for options.

- Saph

[Tengu]

Sure, if you count every way of building a, for example, pure fighter in 3.5, there will be more options, but most of them will do the same in the end - hit the enemy with a pointy objext, round by round. Barbarians will be doing the same, rangers and paladins will be the same but with some additional casting and/or smiting. In 4e, you have multiple options within every class, and you can take multiclass feats to give yourself more flexibility without sucking.

Only casters are less flexible now.

[Illiterate Scribe]

<attempt to sell little known game system>

What would be best would be something like GW did in Inquisitor - there, you can (although few did, what with needing the other hand to gesticulate, open doors with, and such, and also, the aesthetic ugliness of carrying multiple scabbards) wield two weapons; they serve three main functions:


Wield a different weapon type in each hand - useful, since you can, retiarius style, whack someone with a shock weapon, and then, as they're rolling about in pain on the floor, slash them with your more choppy powersword/force axe etc.
Two weapon defence - you can, IIRC, attempt either a two weapon block against single, powerful blows, or use alternate handed blocks, which slow the rate at which your ability to parry degrades
Two weapon attack - sure, you needed a ton of talents to pull this off (as you should), but you can, at the cost of opening up your guard, and diminished accuracy, make a ton of attacks if you're dual-wielding - I've been laid unconscious by many a two-chainaxe-fighting redemptionist in my time, and, while not arguably the most optimal or sane fighting style, it befits them well



That is, in my opinion, the three reasons that you might use two weapons; 4e has 1 and 2 down pat, but not so much on 3 without splurging into ranger levels.

[Talya]

Sure, if you count every way of building a, for example, pure fighter in 3.5....

There are certainly more things a 4e pure fighter can do over a 3.5 fighter (you can reverse that statement with a wizard, though, rendering that irrelevant.) That's not the point. I'm talking about build options. And honestly, who wanted to play a "pure fighter" anyway? No matter how many splatbooks they write, you'll never have the 2 fighter/3 swashbuckler/2 champion of corellon larethian/10 dervish/3 warblade type of builds that are one of the things I love about 3.5. The sheer limitless options for combining classes are part of the fun.

As for non-class based games, yes, they're more versatile, but they're less fun to make "builds" out of. I loved star wars d6 as a system, but I never spent any time building characters just for the fun of it like I did in Saga.

Speaking of Saga - people have called it 4e light. Saga is 100x the game system 4e is. There's true variety in classes, abilitis, and talents. You can multiclass at will. Saga is a great game system. It's got some minor balance issues with uneven skill/save/bab progression, but that is not much of a problem. You can fix much of that through houseruling. Fixing my issues with 4e are not so easy with houserules.

[Project_Mayhem]

attempt to sell little known game system

Inquisitor needs far more love than it gets. By far the single greatest game GW has produced

[Illiterate Scribe]

Indeed. It's an awesome system. That said, the small but stable community that's built up around the Conclave, together with the way Fanatic Online works now, it means that the game can evolve quite well.

Still, it would be awesome if GW brought out their own Dark Heresy / Inquisitor hybrid (28 mm, probably) to go against 4e.

[The_Werebear]

Quick 4e 4th Level TWF Stealthy Fighter build

Be a Human

Stat yourself so that your highest abilities are strength and dexterity, then wisdom.

Wear hide armor.

Pick up a Longsword and Shortsword for your weapons

Take the feats
Warrior of the Wild (taking Stealth as your trained skill)
Two Weapon Fighting
Two Weapon Defense
Novice Power

Take the At Will powers
Cleave (Justify- while hitting someone with your mainhand, you smack his friend with your offhand)
Reaping Strike (Punctuating your mainhand swing with an offhand jab)
Sure Strike (Pinning your foes weapon out of the way with your offhand for a mainhand thrust, abiet, not so powerful as you must focus on keeping their weapon down.)

Take the Encounter Powers
Passing Attack (make the secondary attack offhanded, 1st level)
Cut and Run or Thundertusk Boar Strike, from the ranger list with Novice Power. This depends on if you want to run around a lot or smash foes backwards.

Take the Daily Power
Villain's Menace (Chase your foes down with flurries of weapon blows, the damage boosts are very handy when you are using lower damage weapons. Also, the to hit bonuses mean you aren't going to be missing much when combined with the high proficiency bonus from the swords.)

Take the Utility Power
No Opening (Your defense will be decent between Dex, Hide, and the Two weapon bonus, but it probably won't be as good as someone who chose to go heavy shield. Canceling combat advantage once per encounter is handy, and then the next turn you can shift out or bash them back, depending on which 3rd level ranger encounter you picked.

[Indon]

But the ranger two weapon fighting does it for real, and blows away all the pretenders who just have the feats.

I disagree.

Compare the Fighter At-wills with the Ranger TWF At-will. You'll notice that the Ranger doesn't get to add his strength modifier - his off-hand is essentially replacing his Strength mod.

So to compare against a Fighter with 18 strength, our Ranger needs a 1d8 weapon just to get slightly (.5 damage per swing) ahead of a Fighter one-handing a weapon. The ranger doesn't get extra damage from Hunter's Quarry for multiple attacks, either.

Now, you could get a little bit more out of it by grabbing +damage weapons (such as, say, Fire and Frost damage weapons - being a Drow might help too, I haven't checked), but honestly, nothing about the TWF powers particularly wowed me - or WoWed me, either, as in World of Warcraft there are _way_ more two-weapon fighting options, and it's very much a damage-oriented weapon setup.

[Totally Guy]

I don't understand how you multiclass into ranger paragon path powers.

The Feat Multiclass to Ranger does not give you a fighting style class feature. And the paragon paths for ranger require a fighting style as prerequisite.

And if TWF is different then you can't use another couple of feats to say you qualify that way.

Or you could multiclass the long way taking novice, intitiate and adept avoiding paragon completely.

[Charity]

Just like in WoW, if you want to sneak around, you have to play a rogue (or maybe a druid), you can't build a sneaky warrior or hunter. It's just not possible, the game doesn't allow that type of customization. 4e is built on the same principles. You're being given a few cookie-cutter archtypes with limited flexibility inside each one, and that's it.

Simply not true.
You can do this in 4e much more easily than in 3e. In 3e to get a reasonable number of ranks in sneaky skills you need to start as some skill monkey class or another and possibly invest cross class.
In 4e you take a feat... yup that’s it you can do that at... 1st level.
I understand you dislike 4e, and I am not interested in altering your position 1 iota, but please try to look at it a bit more objectively.


I don't understand how you multiclass into ranger paragon path powers.

The Feat Multiclass to Ranger does not give you a fighting style class feature. And the paragon paths for ranger require a fighting style as prerequisite.

And if TWF is different then you can't use another couple of feats to say you qualify that way.

Or you could multiclass the long way taking novice, intitiate and adept avoiding paragon completely.

AS far as I understand it you cannot enter Ranger Paragons if you are not a ranger, and you shouldn't enter Warlock paragon paths if you're not a warlock (as you can't use curse and all the abilities trigger off curse)

Yeah it is a bit of a blow, but not all paragon paths play well with others.

[Totally Guy]

AS far as I understand it you cannot enter Ranger Paragons if you are not a ranger, and you shouldn't enter Warlock paragon paths if you're not a warlock (as you can't use curse and all the abilities trigger off curse)

Yeah it is a bit of a blow, but not all paragon paths play well with others.


I thought I was going mad. You have interpreted that the same as me.

[Dan_Hemmens]

I know this because immediately upon getting my 4e books, I went down the list of my favourite character abilities and said to myself, "Can't do that . . . can't do that . . . can sort of do that, not very well . . . can't do that . . . meh, I guess if I want to play this I'm going to have to change my priorities."

I think you're missing an important factor which is that as a 3.X player your "favourite character abilities" are going to be things which are mechanically supported by 3.X.

The fact that you can no longer do some things which you are used to being able to do in 3.X doesn't mean that 4E gives you fewer options, it just means that if gives you *different* options.


Whether you think the whole thing's a good trade or not will depend on preference, but there's no arguing that 3.5 > 4e for options.

- Saph

3.5 > 4E for one particular set of options - chiefly multiclass builds over several levels. On the other hand 4E > 3.5 for a *different* set of options.

If, like Talya, you specifically enjoy the minigame of constructing character builds in 3.X, then that's missing and that's a problem. On the other hand if like me you like to pick a single class and stick with it, you're way better off with 4E.

Arguing that 3.5 just gives you flat out "more options" than 4E is meaningless, because different sorts of options matter to different people. You might as well argue that Over the Edge gives you more options than either, because it's a trait-based game so you can play literally anything you can imagine.

FWIW, I really like the fact that TWF isn't a standard option in 4E, because it means my Rogue can carry a dagger in his off-hand without it tying him to a whole build progression.

[Saph]

The fact that you can no longer do some things which you are used to being able to do in 3.X doesn't mean that 4E gives you fewer options, it just means that if gives you *different* options.

3.5 > 4E for one particular set of options - chiefly multiclass builds over several levels.

If, like Talya, you specifically enjoy the minigame of constructing character builds in 3.X, then that's missing and that's a problem. On the other hand if like me you like to pick a single class and stick with it, you're way better off with 4E.

I'm afraid you're quite wrong here - I generally prefer single-class builds and I'm ambivalent about 4e. You're mixing my and Talya's opinions together. I haven't said a word about multiclassing except to answer some questions about it and (to be honest) don't care about it very much.

My issue with 4e is that there are dozens of things you can do in 3.5 that 4e doesn't support in any but a very cursory way - charm, illusion, flight, shapshifting, etc. If you want the full list, I detailed it in this thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=82037).

- Saph

[Curmudgeon]

huh? Errol Flynn was an actor and Miyamoto Musashi was a real person....
Being an actor doesn't keep you from being a real person. Rather, him being a successful actor makes finding details of Errol Flynn's life much easier. But having lived 3 centuries prior to Flynn makes Miyamoto Musashi's life much harder to detail with any great certainty.

We know that Errol Flynn was an accomplished acrobat. That he got to have off-screen landing cushions and multiple takes to accomplish his movie feats doesn't detract from the fact that he did do almost all his own stuntwork.

I think the point you're trying to make is that Flynn's martial maneuvers were scripted and Musashi's were real (sometime before big heaps o' legend were added on, anyway). There's no need to denigrate Errol Flynn's entire life to get this message across, of course.

[Person_Man]

I've played many, many different roleplaying games over the years. It's my opinion that they come in 4 general varieties:

1) Class based (1st edition, 2nd edition, 4th edition): Each class does a specific set of things. Although there will be some overlap on a Venn Diagram for essential abilities, its generally limited. If you want to do TWF, you choose to be a Ranger, because that what's Rangers do.

Although it doesn't make any "real world" sense that a Fighter or Paladin couldn't train themselves to effectively fight with two weapons, that's just the way the mechanics are set up. Doing so maintains game balance and makes each class distinct and worth playing. If the mechanics contradict your character fluff, then you should just change your fluff. In this case, you could just take levels of Ranger, but just call yourself a Fighter when roleplaying.

The primary benefit of a class based system is that its easier to create a character, and harder to power game, and thus also much easier to DM. Just turn to the page your character is listed on, make a few choices, write it down on your sheet, and start playing. You don't even need to come up with a backstory (though you're generally encouraged to do so), because a lot of fluff is directly required or implied by the class itself.

The primary downside is that choice are severely limited, which bugs the heck out of some veteran players who spend a dozen hours planning and thinking about their character for every hour they actually spend at a table actually playing. Why should I write an elaborate story for my Fighter, when I already know the two or three possible paths he MUST FOLLOW along his character development? However, its important to note that this problem is almost always solved by codex creep, which gives you a new options every month (as long as you're willing to pay for them).


2) Skill based (GURPS, World of Darkness, Call of Cthulhu): There are no classes. You decide your personality, backstory, etc., and then search through many many pages choosing the Skills and/or Powers that fit with what you want to do.

You can call yourself a Ranger, or Fighter, or anything else, and use TWF with equal ability.

The primary benefit of a Skill based system is customization. You can literally do anything you want within the bounds of the written abilities/powers/etc.

The primary downside of a Skill based system is that it can be a nightmare to DM a group that includes veterans and new players, and there is a very steep learning curve for new players, who often make "bad" choices because they don't have a deep understanding of the rules.


3) Hybrid (3rd Edition, 3.5, most other d20 games published in the last 8 years): Some combination of classes and skills/powers. It's ease of use customization varies wildly depending upon your DM, your gaming group, and what books you have access to (and allow).


4) Roleplaying-centric (Amber, LARPs): Screw dice and miniatures. Lets just sit around a table and come up with an overly elaborate group story!


4E isn't 3E or 3.5. Not even close. You can't replicate a 3E character using 4E rules. And in many cases, the type of character choices you would make are simply impossible.

Now, that doesn't mean 4E is a bad game. I have yet to play it. It's just a totally different game, that just happens to appropriate many of the names and archtypes of 3.5 (which in turn did the same thing to 2nd edition).

[its_all_ogre]

when i learned to play 3e i finally had to forget eveything about 2nd ed and treat it as a brand new game which happened to share the name.
this was essential as when my friends and i first starting playing we made all kinds of mistakes by treating it as an extension of the same game, it was a total overhaul in many ways.
imo the only thing that changed very little was the basic way magic was used. (this is what led to the spellcasters reigning supreme at least on paper, hps went up blasting spells stayed the same so they effectively got weaker. casters found other ways to be more useful, eventually realising they could do away with certain classes if they were clever with spell lists. or feats)

4e is as much a total change as 3e was when compared to 2e.
i think once people realise that these sorts of threads will cease...well...diminish.
(there are still 2e vs 3e threads appearing roughly once a month even now!)

[Talya]

Simply not true.
You can do this in 4e much more easily than in 3e. In 3e to get a reasonable number of ranks in sneaky skills you need to start as some skill monkey class or another and possibly invest cross class.
In 4e you take a feat... yup that’s it you can do that at... 1st level.
I understand you dislike 4e, and I am not interested in altering your position 1 iota, but please try to look at it a bit more objectively.

As a side note...for the THIRD TIME...stealth was only mentioned in relation to World of Warcraft. I never mentioned anything about creating a stealthy character in 4e.

[Fhaolan]

Just a note, fighting with two weapons does have a RL historical basis beyond Miyamoto Musashi, and not just using the dagger to block. They are, however, rare and difficult styles to master. Most of those styles are based upon dual matched weapons, such as escrimina sticks, or a case of rapiers, rather than two mismatched weapons.

[Corolinth]

but no game has ever had the ability to make a character a puzzle customized with a thousand peices like it did.GURPS

Excuse me. Too much soda.

[The Necroswanso]

SO, I'll admit even though I was skeptical about it, 4e has blown my brains out the back of my head.
But I have a few questions. Some of them can be answered, others I'm not so sure about.

Two Weapons Fighting (The ability, not the feat): Are Rangers the only ones who get it?
And if not, are they the only ones who can use one handed weapons as offhand weapons?
If they are not the only ones who get it, are there any actual penalties for fighting with two weapons?

What is the deal with the Bastard Sword and the Greatsword? There's what, a two pound difference, and the Bastard Sword is Versatile. So why even have the Greatsword? If you're a striker, you'll probably burn the feat.


And finally, can Kobolds become legitimately insanely powerful now that they're not penalised?

[Matthew]

There is a [4e] fighting with two weapons thread just a few posts down, I do believe.

You can nick other people's class features with Multi Classing, but yeah the Ranger is now more aptly named the "fighter who uses two weapons"

As to Great Swords versus Bastard Swords, well 2 lbs is a hell of a difference. I'm not saying it's a good rule, but the Great Sword is 1/3 heavier than the Bastard Sword (and that assumes that part of the weight isn't the scabbard).

[RTGoodman]

Well, regarding 4E and TWF, there's this whole other thread on page one of this very forum (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=82605) that deals with it. I haven't read it all, since like a lot of threads it seemed like it would just devolve into people arguing back and forth, but it'll answer your questions. [Edit - Merged]

In short, everyone can wield two weapons, but unless you're a Ranger the other has to have the Offhand keyword. With the feats (TWF, TWDefense) you get something like +1 damage and +1 AC and Reflex while dual-wielding, which to most people isn't worth it. There are no penalties, since you aren't actually making attack rolls with both at the same time.

My suggestion? If you don't like it, add a Paragon level feat that requires a certain Dex score (15, maybe?) that allows you to add your Dex modifier to all damage rolls when you fight with two weapons. I mean, that's better than +1 (since a 15 Dex requirement means you'll be adding at least +2), and still fits the 4E ideal that feats add small, minor bonuses, but it's still better than nothing. Alternatively, just add a few of the basic two-weapon powers to the Fighter and Rogue power lists.

As far as Kobolds, I don't know what you mean by "become legitimately insanely powerful now that they're not penalised." They've always been legitimately insanely powerful! And cooler than other races, too! :smallbiggrin:

[Roland St. Jude]

Sheriff of Moddingham: Two two-weapon fighting 4e threads merged above. Please see if your intended topic could fit in an existing thread before starting a new one. Thanks.

[kjones]

There are certainly more things a 4e pure fighter can do over a 3.5 fighter (you can reverse that statement with a wizard, though, rendering that irrelevant.) That's not the point. I'm talking about build options. And honestly, who wanted to play a "pure fighter" anyway? No matter how many splatbooks they write, you'll never have the 2 fighter/3 swashbuckler/2 champion of corellon larethian/10 dervish/3 warblade type of builds that are one of the things I love about 3.5. The sheer limitless options for combining classes are part of the fun.

As for non-class based games, yes, they're more versatile, but they're less fun to make "builds" out of. I loved star wars d6 as a system, but I never spent any time building characters just for the fun of it like I did in Saga.

Speaking of Saga - people have called it 4e light. Saga is 100x the game system 4e is. There's true variety in classes, abilitis, and talents. You can multiclass at will. Saga is a great game system. It's got some minor balance issues with uneven skill/save/bab progression, but that is not much of a problem. You can fix much of that through houseruling. Fixing my issues with 4e are not so easy with houserules.

I don't disagree with what you're saying here, but the build you mention as an example of "sheer limitless options" is at least 80% out of core. It's not fair to compare core 4th edition to 3.5th edition + all the splatbooks. Of course there won't be as many options - sheer numbers see to that.

I would argue that a 4th edition fighter has more options than a core 3.5th edition fighter, but I rarely played core in 3.5, so I can't really say.

[Typewriter]

Another point of interest that I didn't see mentioned is that while anyone can hold two weapons and take the feat to get the AC/Reflex/Damage bonus only a ranger can hold any one handed weapon in his off hand.

Weapons have special properties assigned to them, and one of them is 'off hand'. So if you're a fighter who multiclasses with ranger, you can use their abilities but your off-hand weapon will be slightly weaker than your main hand, because you dont have the ranger ability which reads:

you can wield a one-handed weapon in your off hand as if it were an
off-hand weapon

The only way to attack with both weapons is ranger abilities, unless you also eventually take the feat Two-Weapon Flurry. The prerequisite is a good Dex(19), and the feat that gives +1 damage when dual wielding.

That lets you make two opportunity attacks instead of 1 (though your off hand will have a -5 to hit).

[Dan_Hemmens]

I'm afraid you're quite wrong here - I generally prefer single-class builds and I'm ambivalent about 4e. You're mixing my and Talya's opinions together. I haven't said a word about multiclassing except to answer some questions about it and (to be honest) don't care about it very much.

Fair enough, sorry to have conflated the two.


My issue with 4e is that there are dozens of things you can do in 3.5 that 4e doesn't support in any but a very cursory way - charm, illusion, flight, shapshifting, etc. If you want the full list, I detailed it in this thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=82037).

- Saph

The thing is, that doesn't prove that 4E gives you *fewer* options than 3.X, merely that it doesn't give you *those particular* options. Since 3.X has been out for the better part of a decade, people are going to have established styles using the 3.X ruleset which will not port directly into 4E.

Any RPG system will have things which it can model easily which other RPGs don't model well or at all. It doesn't mean that those other RPGs give you fewer options.

In Over the Edge I can play a mad god stuck in the body of an eight year old girl and wracked with agony as demons constantly assault my soul, or I can play a perfectly normal Canadian tourist. Neither of these are viable concepts in any edition of D&D, that doesn't mean that Over the Edge gives you more options, just that it gives you *different* options.

[Ardwin Burch]

I haven't been able to find anything in the rules about strength and an off-hand weapon. Do you still only apply half of your strength, or do you get to add all of it?

[Sir_Dr_D]

I haven't been able to find anything in the rules about strength and an off-hand weapon. Do you still only apply half of your strength, or do you get to add all of it?

When you use a power that allows you to use 2 weapon, you use your full strength, I beleive. If you don't use any powers, you can only atatck with one weapon or the other, getting a full strength bonus for which ever weapon you use.


I like the 2 weapon fighting rule sin htis edition. It seems more realistic and takes less dicing on top of that. Fighters shouldn't be able to do all that much with 2 weapon fighting, for the same reason that they should be able to do ki strikes. LInk being a monk, 2 weapon fighting would take special training. And the class where you get that special training is a ranger.

[Ardwin Burch]

Sweet, that'll be useful.

[Vikazc]

You know what my favorite argument from people is?

"4e limits my options because I can't play a dexterity based TWF fighter! How come only rangers get to do that, its not fair, my fighter should be able to learn it!"

I thought about this for a minute. Lets all think about it together.
.................................................. ...................



Thinking.......................................... ................


.................................................. ...................


They're Right! I want to be able to play a dexterity based dual wielding fighter!

So I'm going to make a Ranger...because that's what a Ranger IS