[3.5] Ranger's Combat Style - Multiweapon Fighting?

[monty]

This is to continue the argument from the Simple Q&A thread.

On your mark, get set, flame go!

[Alveanerle]

Basing on answers in Q&A thread - according to the very strict linguistic analysis, it would seem that being 120% RAW one would have to treat the ranger's combat style as not expanding towards multiweapon fighting for creatures with 3+ arms (multiweapon fighting says it replaces the FEAT, combat style says it grants the benefits of the feat, not the feat). Yet, trying to sense where RAI lies, i am going to allow it in my game - of course not for players, they are not allowed any races with 3+ hands

(Say hello to your friendly neighbourhood marilith ranger/dervish)

[monty]

I believe that, since it replaces the feat, that being treated as having it should replace being treated as having the feat. Keep in mind that you aren't just getting the benefits; it's a virtual feat that qualifies for prerequisites and so on.

[Temp.]

RAW, the Ranger may well get TWF instead of MWF (I don't really care to check; the matter is clear in my mind, regardless of the exact wording of the rules).

In any game I DMed, the Ranger would get MWF. I believe this would be the common verdict.

[Shhalahr Windrider]

(multiweapon fighting says it replaces the FEAT, combat style says it grants the benefits of the feat, not the feat).

But multi-limbed creatures cannot benefit from Two-Weapon Fighting, since, for them, it is replaced with Multiweapon Fighting.

[KillianHawkeye]

The most sensible solution is to rule that any 3+ armed Ranger uses some kind of racial substitution level to gain the MWF Combat Style rather than the TWF Combat Style, if you really need it spelled out somewhere.

I really don't think most DMs would think twice before allowing a MWF Ranger.

[Curmudgeon]

Deciding this, as with many other D&D questions, comes down to guessing at game designers' intentions. The options for Combat Style are

• archery
• two-weapon combat

Each of these options provides fixed benefits.

If the ranger selects two-weapon combat, he is treated as having the Two-Weapon Fighting feat, even if he does not have the normal prerequisites for that feat.

Prerequisite: Dex 15.

Prerequisites: Dex 13, three or more hands.

The two feat trees have different prerequisites and (because more hands = more attacks) different benefits.

Archery is generally less damaging than melee combat. The Two-Weapon Fighting feat tree is among the weakest in the game. It seems pretty clear to me that the game designers wanted to give some OK options with Combat Style, but nothing too powerful. In comparison, if you've got 4 hands the Multiweapon Fighting tree provides a much more substantial benefit than TWF: three times the number of off-hand attacks.

In my opinion, the intent of specifically calling the Combat Style option two-weapon combat was specifically to limit it to use with only two weapons.

[JaxGaret]

It definitely could have been spelled out more clearly.

The issue I see really is that the TWF feat includes this Special section:

A 2nd-level ranger who has chosen the two-weapon combat style is treated as having Two-Weapon Fighting, even if he does not have the prerequisite for it, but only when he is wearing light or no armor.

Whereas MWF does not have the same section. However, MWF does state in its own Special section that

This feat replaces the Two-Weapon Fighting feat for creatures with more than two arms.

So the RAW here is really really hard to say. Since MWF references TWF in its Normal section, so you don't even know how MWF works without access to the TWF feat, I would say that that is reason enough to say that the MWF replacement of TWF is RAW for a Ranger.