Quote Originally Posted by Raineh Daze View Post
Yet somehow attacking with two weapons is not impractical despite the far greater mental demands and the extra dexterity required?

Greatswords are not like this. This is impractical. Greatswords would be comparatively light and well-balanced. WotC just sucks with weights.

I haven't seen an argument yet for why the rangers' weapon abilities are tied so neatly to enemies (that doesn't really fit thematically) and are once again TWF or archery. Why TWF and archery? Why not longsword or spear?



It looks like most of those are also ceremonial weapons, which makes them heavier than anything people would actually wield.
Great swords were big, though not that big. They were 60 to 70 inches long though and with that much metal... They start to weigh 10 lbs. A buster sword like that would weigh.. Omg 40 to 50 lbs minimum?

But we weren't talking about just any old swords. It was brought up as a great sword.

Scimitars and long swords would work well with a ranger (robin hood or whatever) but there are some weapons that make no sense at all... Like the great sword.

Archery versus Dragons make sense. Rangers AC should be less than a paladin or fighter so let them stay up front while you the ranger stays away from the dude/dudette that can crank out high melee damage. The Ranger should be able to make any Dex saving throw the Dragon dishes out from a breath weapon.

TWF hordes remind me of the Asian movies where Jet Li or whoever wades into the middle of a battlefield and takes out a ton of enemies with two weapons... Not really in the style of western twf but then again wotc never made their twf modeled after western fighting but more so eastern styles (there is a few that are brutally offensive).