D&D 4th Edition RulesAsk questions about 4th-Edition rules and the like in here. General discussion about 4E or any other game belongs in General RPG Discussion, above.
First: Tempest fighters deal more extra damage with weapons that are off-hand weapons. Suppose you took the Two-Weapon Warrior Multi-class feat - the one that lets you use one-handed weapons in your off hand as though it were an off-hand weapon.
Do you deal the normal +1 bonus damage or do you do the +2 for an off-hand weapon with your non-primary hand? I assume that the primary hand would remain the +1 with a one-handed weapon.
Secondly, is there a multi-class feat for the Tempest Technique? If so, where is it?
__________________ Wait, he did what?!
Yes, he burned down the reinforced adamantine gates, sir. We don't know how, but all indicators seem to support that claim.
[No fortification is safe from a psychopath with pet hellfire engines - the PC's know of at least 3]
... is there a multi-class feat for the Tempest Technique? If so, where is it?
You can get it with a Hybrid character, but I don't think that there is currently a multiclass feat for it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by javcs
Suppose you took the Two-Weapon Warrior Multi-class feat - the one that lets you use one-handed weapons in your off hand as though it were an off-hand weapon.
Do you deal the normal +1 bonus damage or do you do the +2 for an off-hand weapon with your non-primary hand? I assume that the primary hand would remain the +1 with a one-handed weapon.
Why reading would be no, as it is not an offhand weapon. That said, I'd be willing to be convinced otherwise.
The feat allows you to deal extra damage with off-hand weapons, not with weapons wielded in your off-hand.
As far as I can tell, if the weapon itself does not have the off-hand property, you don't get the damage boost.
Agree with this.
I find it kind of odd that only the fighter really benefits from using those off-hand weapons - two-weapon rangers don't. If you want a Katar specialist, the concept works much better as a fighter than as a ranger.
__________________ Carl Cramér
Member of the Netbook of Feats review board.
I find it kind of odd that only the fighter really benefits from using those off-hand weapons - two-weapon rangers don't. If you want a Katar specialist, the concept works much better as a fighter than as a ranger.
Well, the Ranger gets to use better weapons than the off-hand weapons. It's like choosing between a chocolate sundae with fudge topping and a cherry, and a regular ice cream. Just because you're saying 'But it comes with chocolate sprinkles!' doesn't make the whole better than the original chocolate sundae.
However, let's examine the feat. 'wield one-handed weapons in your off-hand as though they were off-hand weapons.' Notice that it does not indicate which rules that applies to. It only says that they are treated as off-hand weapons. This means that -any- rule involving off-hand weapons apply to them. This includes the 'can only wield off-hand weapons in your off-hand' rule, but is not exclusive to that.
So, yes, a tempest fighter does get to apply his bonus because the feat gives him the ability to wield non-off-hand weapons -as tho they were off-hand.- This is -exactly the same- as how a wizard can apply Wand of Accuracy to attacks made through a sword implement if he takes Wizard of the Spiral. No, it's not a wand, but it is treated as though it were a wand.
One thing of note is that you only treat a weapon in your off-hand as an off-hand weapon. So if you want to get a bonus on both hands, your main weapon has to be an official off-hand weapon.
So, yes, a tempest fighter does get to apply his bonus because the feat gives him the ability to wield non-off-hand weapons -as tho they were off-hand.- This is -exactly the same- as how a wizard can apply Wand of Accuracy to attacks made through a sword implement if he takes Wizard of the Spiral. No, it's not a wand, but it is treated as though it were a wand.
While I'll happily admit that my opinion might be wrong, I don't think the situation is "exactly" like the wizard situation. The wizard treats his longsword as though it were a wand, yes, but "wand" is not a weapon property; it's an implement. So Wizards treating their swords as if they were wands would be the same as the multi-class ranger treating his sword as if it were a dagger (or handaxe or whatever) and taking all the hits to damage dice and the like. But that's not what the feat says.
The chainfighter feat, for example, gives the spiked chain the light blade and the off-hand properties, but the ranger feat is not worded in this way. It says that you can wield one-handed weapons in your off hand as if they were off-hand weapons, but doesn't say that one-handed weapons wielded in your off hand are treated as if they had the one-hand property.
Sure this is nit-picky, but I believe it's what's intended. In the same way, I don't think you get to treat a longsword or bastard sword wielded in two hands as a two-handed weapon for the purposes of powers and feats that reward bonuses for 2-handed weapons (like Reaping Strike or the Bloodclaw enchant).
It doesn't matter how you're allowed to wield them (in my opinion), if it doesn't have the weapon property (off-hand/2-hand) you don't get the bonus.
Again, however, this is only my own understanding of the rules.
Well, the Ranger gets to use better weapons than the off-hand weapons. It's like choosing between a chocolate sundae with fudge topping and a cherry, and a regular ice cream. Just because you're saying 'But it comes with chocolate sprinkles!' doesn't make the whole better than the original chocolate sundae.
I actually came up with a Katar Ranger that works - a beastmaster. Funny thing is, he might well be doing less damage than a Tempest Fighter.
__________________ Carl Cramér
Member of the Netbook of Feats review board.
It doesn't matter how you're allowed to wield them (in my opinion), if it doesn't have the weapon property (off-hand/2-hand) you don't get the bonus.
This. You get the Tempest bonus with off-hand weapons - which is to say, weapons with the 'off-hand' property. You get that bonus regardless of which hand in which you wield them, so a Tempest using two short swords would get the bonus with each. But a Tempest with the Two Weapon Warrior feat, using a Longsword in each hand, would not get the Tempest bonus with either weapon.
Note this is an intentional balance - Rangers get to use two larger weapons, while Tempest Fighters get to use smaller weapons but get bonuses with them to make up for it. If you let a character stack the two together, it would end up a bit too powerful - especially considering both builds are already very, very strong.
I will add in my agreement that the feat only applies to meeting the pre-requisites for wielding the weapon, and not for actually changing the weapon's properties. The "as if" is to apply an exception to the general rule that a one-handed weapon without the off-hand property cannot be wielded in the off hand; it does not grant a weapon wielded in such a way the off-hand property.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chzbro
Sure this is nit-picky, but I believe it's what's intended. In the same way, I don't think you get to treat a longsword or bastard sword wielded in two hands as a two-handed weapon for the purposes of powers and feats that reward bonuses for 2-handed weapons (like Reaping Strike or the Bloodclaw enchant).
It doesn't matter how you're allowed to wield them (in my opinion), if it doesn't have the weapon property (off-hand/2-hand) you don't get the bonus.
As you can hopefully tell, in general I agree with you. I only want to point out, though, that while Reaping Strike specifies two-handed weapons, the Bloodclaw weapon actually does read for a weapon wielded in two hands -- which therefore does allow for versatile weapons to gain an extra damage bonus dependent upon how it is wielded.
As you can hopefully tell, in general I agree with you. I only want to point out, though, that while Reaping Strike specifies two-handed weapons, the Bloodclaw weapon actually does read for a weapon wielded in two hands -- which therefore does allow for versatile weapons to gain an extra damage bonus dependent upon how it is wielded.
-Dan'L
The clarification is appreciated. I'm pretty sure I would have never noted the distinction otherwise.
And since I do love to bemoan how broken that enchant is, it's probably best if I actually know how it works .
[quote=Chzbro;4863173]While I'll happily admit that my opinion might be wrong, I don't think the situation is "exactly" like the wizard situation. The wizard treats his longsword as though it were a wand, yes, but "wand" is not a weapon property; it's an implement. So Wizards treating their swords as if they were wands would be the same as the multi-class ranger treating his sword as if it were a dagger (or handaxe or whatever) and taking all the hits to damage dice and the like. But that's not what the feat says.
In D&D4, 'wield/use foo as though it were/instead of/as a [/i]bar[i]' has a specific meaning: That anything that benefits/hinders bar is applied to foo. So yes, it is -exactly- the same.
'Use sword as though it were wand' means stuff benefitting wand benefits sword. It has nothing to do with weapon types or implement types, but the general rules template.
Is weapon in your off-hand? Check. Is it one-handed? Check. So you treat it as though it were an off-hand weapon. That means not only is this configuration permissible, you get the damage bonus from tempest. Otherwise, you are -not- treating it as though it were an off-hand weapon, and you are not obeying the pertinent rule.
Contrast with 'You may wield one-handed weapons without the off-hand property in your off-hand.' That is a different rule, and applies different baggage.
The rule is granting an exception to a general rule, but it's not the exception you think. It's not saying 'You can wield non-off-hand weapons in your off hand.' it's saying 'The benefits of the off-hand property are applied to all one-handed weapons in your off-hand' which is absolutely different.
And as well, it doesn't do anything for a weapon in your main-hand, so if you want the damage bonus, make that an off-hand weapon. Double-weapons are -still- the place to go here.
Whether the weapon is in your off-hand or not has no bearing on a tempest fighter's damage bonus. "Off-hand" is a weapon quality, which can be relevant (as it is for a tempest) whether the weapon is in your off hand or main hand. And I think that is the key here.
__________________ Carl Cramér
Member of the Netbook of Feats review board.
Whether the weapon is in your off-hand or not has no bearing on a tempest fighter's damage bonus. "Off-hand" is a weapon quality, which can be relevant (as it is for a tempest) whether the weapon is in your off hand or main hand. And I think that is the key here.
And when said weapon is in your off-hand, you treat it 'as if it had the off-hand property.'
That's the point. It isn't that it is in your off-hand, but that the feat allows you to treat it as an off-hand weapon.
Which means it benefits from rules for that property, as per the template for all other 'as if it were a ______' abilities.
Two-Blade Warrior [Multiclass Ranger]
Prerequisite: Str 13, Dex 13
Benefit: You gain training in one skill from the ranger’s class skill list.
You can wield a one-handed weapon in your off hand as though it were an off-hand weapon.
This has two interpretations:
[You can wield a one-handed weapon in your off hand] [as though it were an off-hand weapon].
In this reading, what the feat allows is just the wielding; it does not actually hand out the property.
You can wield a [one-handed weapon] [in your off hand] [as though it were] an [off-hand weapon].
In this reading, the off-hand weapon gains the full benefit of the off-hand property.
I think both are semantically correct; this is just an illustration how infernally hard it is to write rules that are clear (and why we have lawyers). I still favor the first interpretation, as that leads to less complications, but I admit both readings are semantically possible.
__________________ Carl Cramér
Member of the Netbook of Feats review board.
I can see both interpretations being valid. I tend to gravitate toward the first because
1) that is, strictly speaking, what the feat says (unless you interpret "as if it were" to always mean a very specific thing in WotC speak--which I'm perfectly willing to accept it might although I can't find a specific reference that spells this out)
2) it "feels" more balanced to me and fits more accurately with the way I understand other weapon properties to work (although I know this is a completely subjective way to look at it).
Ultimately, I don't see either interpretation tipping the balance scales so terribly that it should have a large enough effect on any individual game to "break" anything.
.
Linear Mode
And yet another word from our sponsors
