Two-Weapon Fighting Rules?

Lizard said:

Is this for non-rangers only, or am I not going to be able to be a twin-bastard-sword-wielding ass-kicker? (I can live without the 2WF feats, though of course they'd be nice if I can get them..)

I *know* my DM is going to give me the Patented Raised Eyebrow when I present my build, so I'd like to have something to back me up...

Click to expand...

Rangers who choose the Two-Blade fighting style can use a one-handed weapon in each hand, even if the off-hand weapon doesn't have the "off-hand" property. Relax, your build is 100% legit.

The vagueness comes in with characters other than Two-Blade rangers. The rules are pretty clear that your off-hand weapon has to have the off-hand property if you want to be able to attack with it, but it's less clear whether it needs to have the off-hand property to count for the TWF feats. Personally, I think the intent is that it does, but since all of the "wielding two weapons" rules are basically rules by inference, it's hard to say.

Danceofmasks said:

Two-Blade Fighting Style: Because of your focus on two-weapon melee attacks, you can wield a one-handed weapon in your off hand as if it were an off-hand weapon.

So rangers with that style 'pretend' all one-handed weapons have the off-hand property.

Click to expand...

Thanks. That makes things more clear, and it means the TWF feats are useful for 2BS Ranger. Excellent.

TWF is an untyped +1 bonus to damage. That's nothing to scoff at. I would sincerily recommend against creating a feat that allows you to take a basic attack per round. That would be way out of league for feats.

PS: The "swing stuff around and see how many attacks you get off"- example wasn't good in the 2e PHB and it isn't good now. Like Gloombunny said, sandbags don't hit back. The relative speed with which you can make threatening attacks against your opponent is more than how fast you flail a weapon around or how many weapons you hold.

med stud said:

TWF is an untyped +1 bonus to damage. That's nothing to scoff at. I would sincerily recommend against creating a feat that allows you to take a basic attack per round. That would be way out of league for feats.

PS: The "swing stuff around and see how many attacks you get off"- example wasn't good in the 2e PHB and it isn't good now. Like Gloombunny said, sandbags don't hit back. The relative speed with which you can make threatening attacks against your opponent is more than how fast you flail a weapon around or how many weapons you hold.

Click to expand...

What I'm implying w/ this silly swing at a bag for 6 seconds thing, is why are the Rangers the only class to be able to attack more than 1x in 6 seconds and hit? Why are they so "special" out of all the melee classes? Personally, I think the other melee classes would be able to do so as well, I don't care for the change in the rules from 3rd edition to 4th edition with regards to the two-weapon fighting stuff. But hey, I'm not the writer/creator of the 4th edition stuff. It's still fun, but I find some of the stuff a little strange how they came about deciding who gets what. I'll continue to play it and adapt to it. I'm not going to complain anymore, was just commenting and asking at first about it because I didn't understand the new rules very well, having played 2e-3.x stuff and knowing what I knew about two-weapon fighting in those editions. I do appreciate all the comments and it's a very lively discussion

Traveon Wyvernspur said:

What I'm implying w/ this silly swing at a bag for 6 seconds thing, is why are the Rangers the only class to be able to attack more than 1x in 6 seconds and hit? Why are they so "special" out of all the melee classes?

Click to expand...

Because Rangers are the only class that is "short-bus special" enough to even attempt flailing about twice in three or four seconds. Everyone else has enough sanity to not cut their own faces off with a second longsword.

Of better note is that a Ranger's two attacks are individually inferior to their single attack. The lost damage due to that missing ability bonus can be huge, which is another reason the 'extra basic attack' suggestion doesn't work at all; that would give an ability that is vastly more powerful than any existing PC multiple weapon fighting rules in 4th edition.

Finally, anyone can make two attacks in a round. Thanks to the mechanic of Action Points.

Traveon Wyvernspur said:

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."

Click to expand...

In 1st edition each "melee round" was 1 minute...then in 2nd there were 6 10second "melee rounds" in a 1 minute "turn" IIRC. In all editions, one round has been defined as the amount of time it takes, in a fight between two skilled combatants, for each of them to find an opportunity to land a telling blow on the other. For the other 5.5 seconds of the round, both combatants are sparring, probing, feinting and looking for that opening. Of course in earlier editions characters could gain extra attacks by various means; 4th ed has decided this was broken and has seriously limited it for characters and monsters.

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".

Click to expand...

Why can only rogues get extra damage from a sneak attack? If my fighter has successfully hidden, and his enemy doesn't know he's there, shouldn't he be able to hit a vital spot even though he can't pick a lock?

Don't get too hung up on the class labels. A class is merely a set of skills chosen as a group. Rangers can deal strong damage with a bow, attack twice per round in melee, wear light armor, have a wide variety of skills, and can move on the battlefield more effectively than most characters. All of this comes with the ranger package.

The fighter package includes being tougher (HP and surges), wearing heavier armor and often using a shield, using each type of weapon in unique ways, a limited skill set, and being able to threaten enemies and keep them from easily attacking your comrades.

If you want a "2 weapon fighter", what you want is probably a ranger-set with an armor feat and toughness. The character may call himself a fighter, he may never have heard the term "ranger", and he may have treephobia. But his powers will be the power set that's designed to work with two weapons.

To give two-attack capability to everyone would hurt the ranger class as much as giving everyone sneak attack would hurt the rogue. You can certainly do it in your game, but it will change the game more than you might think.

4e's interpretation of two-weapon fighting is much closer to how I've wanted it to be for years.

To me, there's no sensible reason why - in an abstract combat system - extra weapons should mean more attacks. Double weapons in 3.x were even sillier, imho.

A flat bonus is much easier to work with in the long run, and (mechanically speaking) it works out okay.

ValhallaGH said:

Of better note is that a Ranger's two attacks are individually inferior to their single attack. The lost damage due to that missing ability bonus can be huge, which is another reason the 'extra basic attack' suggestion doesn't work at all; that would give an ability that is vastly more powerful than any existing PC multiple weapon fighting rules in 4th edition.

Click to expand...

For the ranger, you're ignoring Hunter's Quarry. Double the chance of hitting with your extra d6 or d8 or damage is generally just as good or better than getting a strength bonus.

-O

Traveon Wyvernspur said:

What I'm implying w/ this silly swing at a bag for 6 seconds thing, is why are the Rangers the only class to be able to attack more than 1x in 6 seconds and hit?

Click to expand...

They aren't. Fighters get Passing Attack(1) Rain of Blows(3), and Storm of Blows(13). Rogues get Rogue's Luck(7). Warlords get Pillar to Post(23).

What sets rangers apart is that their training focuses primarily on making and exploiting several holes in the defenses of their opponents, while the other classes focus primarily on making and exploiting a single large opening. Overall the net damage is about the same.

Compare Cruel Cage of Steel(ranger 19), Reaving Strike(fighter 19), and Feinting Flurry(rogue 19). The fighter and the rogue are doing 5[W] damage and the ranger is doing 2[W], 2[W], and 1[W]. The ranger, despite making more attacks, isn't doing more damage. Allowing fighters or rogues to append a basic attack with an off-hand weapon to their normal attack would actually make them better than the ranger at two-weapon combat.

Traveon Wyvernspur said:

I understand your points. My point is that the Ranger class shouldn't be the only two-weapon fighting class with two-weapon fighting skills.

Click to expand...

first, asking the question over and over when people are givin you answers isn't going to help you understand it...


and second, who says it is? last time I checked wotc has bunch of books coming out over the next few months/year with names like martial power, and players handbook two... all the ranger class is, is the only book in the 4ePHB that has teh two weapon fighting stuff built it... and as other people have mentioned, it isn't even that

Don't get hung up on class labels. Third edition has more flexibility concerning individual classes, but fourth edition makes the classes better by giving them niches that the other classes don't tread upon. Creating the build you want in fourth edition means figuring out what you want that character to do best and selecting the class that fills that niche.

Say you want make a two-weapon fighting character. There are many ways to go about it depending on how you want to fight with two weapons:

1) I want to attack as many possible times per round with my twin blades of red, misty, death.
Congrats, you are a ranger.

2) As (1), but I want to stand in one spot while my enemies fall around me.
You are a fighter multiclassed as ranger. Taking all of the multiclass feats + more rangeriness in lieu of a paragon path should, unless I am mistaken (I don't have the book in front of me), give you a TWF at-will, TWO TWF encounters, and TWO TWF dailies. Should be plenty for any aspiring meat-grinder.


3) I want to play a 3e-style TWF fighter.
Easy enough. You are a ranger with some Armor Proficiency feats. 3e fighters could not do things like combat challenge and tanking anyway. They just ran around and killed things. Which is kind of what rangers do now.

4) I want to play a swashbucklery warrior with a rapier and dagger.
Welcome to rogue-ville. Population: You plus many others. Take TWF and go to town. If you need the extra attacks, follow the step outlined under (2), only replace "fighter" with "rogue".

5) I want to be a Roy Greenhilt-style intelligent fighter that is able to out-think his enemies in addition fight with two weapons. (Yes, I know Roy doesn't fight with two weapons)
It's true that INT is now a dump-stat for fighters. Smart fighters are now called warlords. Take some Armor feats and some ranger multiclass goodness, and you're ready to dish it out.