Two-Weapon Fighting Rules?




What's on your mind?

+ Log in or register to post
Page 1 of 5 12345 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 42
  1. #1
    Registered User
    Myrmidon (Lvl 10)

    Traveon Wyvernspur's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Las Vegas, NV
    Posts
    1,028

    Ignore Traveon Wyvernspur
    My communities:

    Two-Weapon Fighting Rules?

    I'm really confused on the Two-Weapon Fighting rules. From what I'm getting reading the PHB, it seems that ONLY Rangers can use two-weapon fighting. I see the feat for two-weapon fighting in the PHB, but it doesn't specify if you can use both weapons in the same round or what kind of penalities are applied to characters who try to do so, like in the older versions of D&D. The "off-hand" weapon section (pg. 217) states:


    Off-Hand:
    An off-hand weapon is light enough
    that you can hold it and attack effectively with it
    while holding a weapon in your main hand. You cant
    attack with both weapons in the same turn, unless
    you have a power that lets you do so, but you can
    attack with either weapon.

    Now this seems to state that you cannot use two weapons in the same round unless you have a "power" to do so, meaning (to me) only a Ranger with two-weapon fighting (that he gets automatically picking the two-weapon path thing) can use his two-weapon powers to attack in the same round. OR a player who gets the two-weapon proficiency and multi-classes into a Ranger. This seems really silly to me.

    My thoughts are why would this even be a feat that someone else can get but no be able to wield two weapons in the same round/turn? The old rules stated penalities to characters who wanted to do this of like -2 to main hand and -4 to offhand on their attack and damage rolls, then went down to -1 for main, -2 for off-hand when they picked up the proficiency.

    As the DM of the current game that I'm running, I'm going to allow my friend who is playing a rogue to use two Katars if he picks up the two-weapon feat, I'm going to allow him to do a power with only the main-hand weapon and a regular melee attack with the off-hand. I'm just wanting to know if people think I'm right in doing this since it makes sense to me from what I'm used to playing and why would there be a two-weapon feat that doesn't allow someone to wield two weapons at the same time and they don't want to multi-class into a ranger?

    Please post any thoughts or comments, I would greatly appreciate any help on trying to decide this matter once and for all.

    Trav


 

  • #2
    I really don't like the way it's handled either; it seems to be a nasty side-effect of the power system. However, it should be fairly easy to take the Ranger TWF powers and tweak them to fit as powers for other Martial classes. I'm really hoping that the Martial Power book expands on the TWF concept in this manner, because it's my favorite way to do Melee.

    Mor
    The tests say...
    I am a Black Dragon. I am a d8: deep, dark and cynical. I am a NE Human Necromancer, follower of Velsharoon.
    Stats: Str 12/Dex 11/Con 11/Int 14/Wis 16/Cha 15.

    I am the Harbinger of Oblivion. I am the sign, the Omen of Midnight's Vengeance.

    In memoriam E. Gary Gygax 1938-2008. We are forever in your debt.

  • #3
    Registered User
    Acolyte (Lvl 2)



    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    887

    Ignore FadedC
    Two weapon fighting is really hard to balance properly because doubling your number of attacks is just really strong. The ranger is balanced around having this ability, while other classes are not. So other classes can use 2 weapons, they just don't attack twice. This seems fine to me, given that most actual two weapon fighting styles don't use both weapons to attack at once.

    A rogue with easy access to two attacks would be particularly broken due to sneak attack. Even though you can only sneak attack once a round, having 2 chances to do it is huge. As it stands the current TWF feats are still strong enough that almost every rogue will take them.

  • #4
    Registered User
    Acolyte (Lvl 2)

    Oompa's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Schiedam, The Netherlands
    Posts
    693

    Ignore Oompa
    Dont forget that TWF also leads to other.. better feats..

    I like the way TWF is handled now, an bit more realistic..

  • #5
    Registered User
    Acolyte (Lvl 2)

    Gloombunny's Avatar

    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    nw 62nd st, seattle wa
    Posts
    968

    Ignore Gloombunny
    I'm just sad that they kept the "two weapons = extra attacks" thing even for just one class. It's such a ridiculous mental image, some guy with a sword in each hand flailing away with both arms in front of him like that...

  • #6
    Quote Originally Posted by Traveon Wyvernspur View Post
    Now this seems to state that you cannot use two weapons in the same round unless you have a "power" to do so, meaning (to me) only a Ranger with two-weapon fighting (that he gets automatically picking the two-weapon path thing) can use his two-weapon powers to attack in the same round. OR a player who gets the two-weapon proficiency and multi-classes into a Ranger. This seems really silly to me.
    Whether it seems silly or not, this is the way the rules are written. Note, however, that the Two-Weapon Fighting feat is not required to wield two weapons(even if you can only attack with one at a time), nor is it a prerequisite for the ranger's two-weapon powers.

    Also, the Two-Blade Fighting Style of the ranger does not grant the character the Two-Weapon Fighting feat. It permits the use of any one-handed weapon as the off-hand weapon, and provides the Toughness feat. A ranger who wants Two-Weapon Fighting must spend a feat, like anyone else.
    Quote Originally Posted by Traveon Wyvernspur View Post
    My thoughts are why would this even be a feat that someone else can get but no be able to wield two weapons in the same round/turn? The old rules stated penalities to characters who wanted to do this of like -2 to main hand and -4 to offhand on their attack and damage rolls, then went down to -1 for main, -2 for off-hand when they picked up the proficiency.
    The feat provides a +1 bonus to damage on attacks made with the weapon in the main hand. This is almost as good as upgrading to a two-handed weapon. Rogues(who cannot use their powers with two-handed weapons) and melee rangers(who will likely want to wield two weapons for their powers) will find it particularly valuable.

    Just because it doesn't do what similarly named feats did in 3rd edition, doesn't mean it doesn't do anything. It is right on par with Weapon Focus, trading scaling for an untyped bonus(it doesn't get bigger in later tiers, but it stacks with everything).

    Quote Originally Posted by Traveon Wyvernspur View Post
    As the DM of the current game that I'm running, I'm going to allow my friend who is playing a rogue to use two Katars if he picks up the two-weapon feat, I'm going to allow him to do a power with only the main-hand weapon and a regular melee attack with the off-hand. I'm just wanting to know if people think I'm right in doing this since it makes sense to me from what I'm used to playing and why would there be a two-weapon feat that doesn't allow someone to wield two weapons at the same time and they don't want to multi-class into a ranger?
    I would recommend against it, as the player is already getting a bonus from the feat. Handing him an additional bonus for free seems unbalancing.

    If you want to make sense of the way the feat works now, you can consider the character to be feinting with the off-hand weapon. This causes his opponent to leave bigger openings, allowing for the damage increase. He never actually lands a hit with the off-hand weapon, but he's still using it to fight.
    Quote Originally Posted by Gloombunny
    I'm just sad that they kept the "two weapons = extra attacks" thing even for just one class. It's such a ridiculous mental image, some guy with a sword in each hand flailing away with both arms in front of him like that...
    One fight scene that sticks in my mind to this day occurs in the 1998 film The Mask of Zorro. Zorro is being attacked by two soldiers, one on either side of him, and he is fighting them both off. At the beginning of the fight, they are moving very differently, meaning Zorro is engaged in two entirely unrelated fencing matches simultaneously. I am personally very pleased that there is a mechanic in place to permit such an event in 4th edition D&D.

  • #7
    Registered User
    Myrmidon (Lvl 10)

    Traveon Wyvernspur's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Las Vegas, NV
    Posts
    1,028

    Ignore Traveon Wyvernspur
    My communities:

    Thanks for all the comments. Since the rogue can't use the 2nd weapon in any of his powers unless he mult-classed into ranger powers, he wouldn't want to do that to gain those combat advantages because he'd lose his next tier of powers in the process. After reading everything over again, it does kind of make sense they way they did it, but I hate that only rangers have the two-weapon fighting style with powers, seems a bit unbalanced to me, but I'm not the one who came up with the rules.

    I did a bit more research and found a few other threads on here that deal with two-weapon fighting from early June and quite a few people brought up that since Drizzt is a ranger with two-weapon fighting, that he's the reason behind the new rules. A few others brought up Artimis, I think this is a valid point, since Artimis was a two-weapon fighting assassin/rogue. Now from what I understand each round is 6 seconds, I want someone to see how many punches they can throw at a boxing bag in 6 seconds, my guess is that it's many more than only 1 attack, hence the reason I don't care for only rangers having the skill to swing both their weapons in that 6 seconds, hopefully WotC fixes this rule with adding some more powers to other melee classes that allow the two-weapon fighting rule in new manuals that will be released within the next year or so.

    Before everyone jumps on me for talking about fictional characters, just think on it, why only rangers, why not a two-weapon fighting fighter or rogue? Seems to me the guys who wrote the new rules didn't think on it very well, just my opinion on the matter, changing a pretty cool fighting style that other classes could have in older versions to only one class having or another mutli-classing into and not getting their other cool "powers".

  • #8
    Ranger does not mean nature-hippy or military scout. Ranger is a two-weapon fighting specialist. Ergo, anyone who is a two-weapon fighting specialist is a ranger.

    A two-weapon fighting fighter is a ranger that tries to be a defender and ends up sucking at it. A two-weapon fighting rogue is a ranger with stealth and thievery.

  • #9
    Registered User
    Gallant (Lvl 3)



    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    California
    Posts
    1,214

    Ignore Kordeth
    Quote Originally Posted by Traveon Wyvernspur View Post
    Thanks for all the comments. Since the rogue can't use the 2nd weapon in any of his powers unless he mult-classed into ranger powers, he wouldn't want to do that to gain those combat advantages because he'd lose his next tier of powers in the process. After reading everything over again, it does kind of make sense they way they did it, but I hate that only rangers have the two-weapon fighting style with powers, seems a bit unbalanced to me, but I'm not the one who came up with the rules.
    You're too hung up on the idea of "two weapon fighting" meaning "attack with each weapon during a single round." A two-weapon rogue has lots of advantages that make using two weapons and taking the various two-weapon fighting feats. The two weapon rogue has:

    - Flexibility. Using a rapier in your main hand and a dagger in your off-hand, you can choose between higher damage and greater accuracy for every attack you make. Is it important to put as much damage into a brute as possible? Use a high-damage encounter or daily. Need to make sure that mad cultist is stunned while the paladin rescues the virgin sacrifice? That +1 to hit with your dagger makes a difference.

    - +1 damage with that rapier. Alternately, fight with the rapier in your off-hand and the dagger in your main hand to even further narrow the damage gap.

    - +1 AC and Reflex, the equivalent of a light shield. Rogues aren't proficient in shields, so this gives you an edge.

    - At epic levels, the ability to make two OAs against a target.

    I did a bit more research and found a few other threads on here that deal with two-weapon fighting from early June and quite a few people brought up that since Drizzt is a ranger with two-weapon fighting, that he's the reason behind the new rules. A few others brought up Artimis, I think this is a valid point, since Artimis was a two-weapon fighting assassin/rogue. Now from what I understand each round is 6 seconds, I want someone to see how many punches they can throw at a boxing bag in 6 seconds, my guess is that it's many more than only 1 attack, hence the reason I don't care for only rangers having the skill to swing both their weapons in that 6 seconds, hopefully WotC fixes this rule with adding some more powers to other melee classes that allow the two-weapon fighting rule in new manuals that will be released within the next year or so.
    In no edition of D&D ever has one attack roll equalled one swing, punch, or other attack. The attack roll is an abstraction of six seconds worth of combat and represents how many effective attacks you can launch in that time. Most attacks are parried or dodged, or they were feints and probes to test an opponent's defenses.

    Don't hold your breath for double-attack powers for other classes. 4E is all about niche protection, and the ranger's niche is attacking people with two weapons in a single round. It's unlikely you'll see other classes doing that any more than seeing other classes have powers with different effects based on what weapon they're using (that being the fighter's schtick).

    Before everyone jumps on me for talking about fictional characters, just think on it, why only rangers, why not a two-weapon fighting fighter or rogue? Seems to me the guys who wrote the new rules didn't think on it very well, just my opinion on the matter, changing a pretty cool fighting style that other classes could have in older versions to only one class having or another mutli-classing into and not getting their other cool "powers".
    Once again, you're too fixated on two-weapon fighting meaning "attacking once with each weapon." I and others in this thread have already pointed out that rogues using two weapons is perfectly viable, it's just different than a ranger's way of using two weapons.
    ++++++++++++
    Travis Stout

    "An absolute monarchy is one in which the sovereign does as he pleases so long as he pleases the assassins."
    --Ambrose Bierce

  • #10
    I just wish they had made the two weapon fighting a strength or dexterity based skill, so it would be valid for multiclassing rogues to take it.

  • + Log in or register to post
    Page 1 of 5 12345 LastLast

    Similar Threads

    1. House Rules: Two Weapon Fighting as One Feat
      By airwalkrr in forum Older D&D Editions and OSR Gaming
      Replies: 11
      Last Post: Sunday, 3rd March, 2013, 11:53 PM
    2. Some Two Weapon Fighting and Thrown Weapon Feats
      By Rahkan in forum Older D&D Editions and OSR Gaming
      Replies: 6
      Last Post: Saturday, 13th May, 2006, 06:59 PM
    3. Weapon Finess + Two Weapon fighting question
      By Dagger75 in forum Older D&D Editions and OSR Gaming
      Replies: 1
      Last Post: Tuesday, 19th August, 2003, 03:20 AM
    4. [3.5E] Two Weapon Fighting vs. Multiweapon Fighting!
      By Knightfall in forum General RPG Discussion
      Replies: 3
      Last Post: Monday, 17th February, 2003, 02:52 PM
    5. Supreme Two-Weapon Fighting vs Perfect Two-Weapon Fighting
      By CrimsonScribe in forum Older D&D Editions and OSR Gaming
      Replies: 12
      Last Post: Sunday, 22nd September, 2002, 12:52 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
    •