New OOTS products from CafePress
New OOTS t-shirts, ornaments, mugs, bags, and more
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 56

Thread: 4e TWF?

  1. - Top - End - #1
    Firbolg in the Playground
     
    Kobold

    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Earth... sort of.
    Gender
    Male

    Default 4e TWF?

    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.
    Avatar by K penguin. Sash by Damned1rishman.
    MOVIE NIGHTS AND LETS PLAYS LIVESTREAMED

  2. - Top - End - #2

    Default Re: 4e TWF?

    Quote Originally Posted by shadow_archmagi View Post
    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.

  3. - Top - End - #3
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    Artanis's Avatar

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    BFE
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: 4e TWF?

    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
    Last edited by Artanis; 2008-06-07 at 07:34 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Cheesegear View Post
    Girlfriend and Parents: Why do you spend so much money on that stuff?
    Me: Would you rather I spent all my money on alcohol like others in my peer group?
    G&P: You keep spending as much money as you want!
    Spoiler
    Show
    Bossing Around Mad Cats for Fun and Profit: Let's Play MechCommander 2!

    Kicking this LP into overdrive: Let's Play StarCraft 2!

  4. - Top - End - #4
    Firbolg in the Playground
     
    Planetar

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    London, England.

    Default Re: 4e TWF?

    Quote Originally Posted by shadow_archmagi View Post
    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
    I'm the author of the Alex Verus series of urban fantasy novels. Fated is the first, and the final book in the series, Risen, is out as of December 2021. For updates, check my blog!

  5. - Top - End - #5
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    MonkGuy

    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: 4e TWF?

    Multiclass as ranger and take some of its powers wouldn't suffice?
    In two seconds I will hit the ground
    A moment stretched out over years
    And my eyes will flicker and then something has changed
    An empty cage, a crimson bud, a street of blood
    A city rose sprung out to greet the rain


    PoS: Enter Rain

  6. - Top - End - #6

    Default Re: 4e TWF?

    Quote Originally Posted by FinalJustice View Post
    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?

  7. - Top - End - #7
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    RedSorcererGirl

    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Icy Evil Canadia
    Gender
    Female

    Default Re: 4e TWF?

    I so hate this game.

  8. - Top - End - #8
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    Crow's Avatar

    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: 4e TWF?

    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 =)
    Avatar by Aedilred

    GitP Blood Bowl Manager Cup Record
    Styx Rivermen, Feets Reloaded, and Selene's Seductive Strut
    Record: 42-17-13
    3-time Division Champ, Cup Champion

  9. - Top - End - #9

    Default Re: 4e TWF?

    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!

  10. - Top - End - #10
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    Reinboom's Avatar

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Santa Monica, CA, US
    Gender
    Female

    Default Re: 4e TWF?

    Quote Originally Posted by Azerian Kelimon View Post
    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".

    Quote Originally Posted by Talya View Post
    I so hate this game.
    I like cats.
    Avatar by Alarra

  11. - Top - End - #11
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    MindFlayer

    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Montréal
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: 4e TWF?

    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).

  12. - Top - End - #12
    Banned
     
    Rutee's Avatar

    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Gender
    Female

    Default Re: 4e TWF?

    Quote Originally Posted by Talya View Post
    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!

  13. - Top - End - #13
    Ogre in the Playground
    Join Date
    Mar 2006

    Default Re: 4e TWF?

    Quote Originally Posted by Rutee View Post
    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)

  14. - Top - End - #14
    Banned
     
    Rutee's Avatar

    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Gender
    Female

    Default Re: 4e TWF?

    Quote Originally Posted by Cybren View Post
    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
    Last edited by Rutee; 2008-06-08 at 01:54 AM.

  15. - Top - End - #15
    Ogre in the Playground
    Join Date
    Mar 2006

    Default Re: 4e TWF?

    Quote Originally Posted by Rutee View Post
    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.

  16. - Top - End - #16
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    Tengu's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Poland
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: 4e TWF?

    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Talya View Post
    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.
    Last edited by Tengu; 2008-06-08 at 02:01 AM.

    Birdman of the Church of Link's Hat

  17. - Top - End - #17
    Banned
     
    Rutee's Avatar

    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Gender
    Female

    Default Re: 4e TWF?

    Quote Originally Posted by Cybren View Post
    (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.

  18. - Top - End - #18
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    RedSorcererGirl

    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Icy Evil Canadia
    Gender
    Female

    Default Re: 4e TWF?

    Quote Originally Posted by Rutee View Post
    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.
    Last edited by Talya; 2008-06-08 at 02:07 AM.

  19. - Top - End - #19
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    Attilargh's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Helsinki, Finland
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: 4e TWF?

    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?

  20. - Top - End - #20
    Banned
     
    Rutee's Avatar

    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Gender
    Female

    Default Re: 4e TWF?

    {Scrubbed}
    Last edited by Roland St. Jude; 2008-06-08 at 10:59 AM.

  21. - Top - End - #21
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    Cute_Riolu's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jun 2007

    Default Re: 4e TWF?

    Quote Originally Posted by Rutee View Post
    Snip
    As much as I agree with everything you're saying, obvious flamer is obvious. There are better ways to state such things.
    Formerly known as Cariyaga.

  22. - Top - End - #22
    Banned
     
    Rutee's Avatar

    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Gender
    Female

    Default Re: 4e TWF?

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

  23. - Top - End - #23
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    RedSorcererGirl

    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Icy Evil Canadia
    Gender
    Female

    Default Re: 4e TWF?

    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.
    Last edited by Talya; 2008-06-08 at 04:44 AM.

  24. - Top - End - #24
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    BardGuy

    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Italy (I'd rather flee)
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: 4e TWF?

    Quote Originally Posted by shadow_archmagi View Post
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by That Schubert Guy What Wrote that Vampire Article
    In the D&D game, so much of a character’s identity is expressed by the powers that character can use.

  25. - Top - End - #25

    Default Re: 4e TWF?

    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.
    Last edited by Bearonet; 2008-06-08 at 06:43 AM.

  26. - Top - End - #26
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    Tengu's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Poland
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: 4e TWF?

    Quote Originally Posted by Talya View Post
    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.
    Last edited by Tengu; 2008-06-08 at 08:25 AM.

    Birdman of the Church of Link's Hat

  27. - Top - End - #27
    Firbolg in the Playground
     
    Planetar

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    London, England.

    Default Re: 4e TWF?

    Quote Originally Posted by Tengu View Post
    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.

    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
    I'm the author of the Alex Verus series of urban fantasy novels. Fated is the first, and the final book in the series, Risen, is out as of December 2021. For updates, check my blog!

  28. - Top - End - #28
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    Tengu's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Poland
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: 4e TWF?

    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.

    Birdman of the Church of Link's Hat

  29. - Top - End - #29
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    Illiterate Scribe's Avatar

    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Dat Shoggoth

    Default Re: 4e TWF?

    <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.

  30. - Top - End - #30
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    RedSorcererGirl

    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Icy Evil Canadia
    Gender
    Female

    Default Re: 4e TWF?

    Quote Originally Posted by Tengu View Post
    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.
    Last edited by Talya; 2008-06-08 at 09:21 AM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •