Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Two-Weapon Fighting Rules?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="tiornys" data-source="post: 4400099" data-attributes="member: 17633"><p>It's quite difficult to balance this across all "melee classes" within the current role-oriented system. Classical two-weapon fighting, i.e. gaining additional attacks, leads directly to higher damage output. In 4E, high damage output is the province of strikers. Allowing defenders (fighter, paladin) and leaders (warlord, some clerics) to readily double their damage output at the cost of a few feats (which are far more abundant in 4E than in 3.5E) makes it easy and inexpensive for them to take over the role of striker while still playing their normal role.</p><p></p><p>Fighters were originally the kings of melee damage output, as well as theoretically the damage sponge. 4E designers needed to assign roles to various classes, and in doing so chose to make the Fighter a defender rather than a striker. I think that choice fits better with the long time philosophy of the fighter, even if it infringes on some of the previous mechanical benefits of a fighter. </p><p></p><p>Similarly, they chose to make the ranger a striker. While it's probable that Drizzt influenced that choice, it makes sense from a long term flavor standpoint as well: the ranger has always been a lightly armored, wilderness based hunter-flavored version of a fighter. It's far easier to translate that flavor into a 4E striker than a 4E defender. Once you've chosen the striker role for the ranger, classical two-weapon fighting becomes a very reasonable thing to assign to the class.</p><p></p><p>So, while I sympathize with your frustration from a flavor standpoint, I can't agree with your arguments that the system would have been better served by allowing classical two-weapon fighting to be accessible by all or most classes, nor that the designers failed to consider historical context when creating the new system. 4E discards and/or modifies a ton of long-term D&D standards, and I'm confident that in each case, the decision to change was considered, contemplated, and probably agonized over by the designers.</p><p></p><p>t~</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="tiornys, post: 4400099, member: 17633"] It's quite difficult to balance this across all "melee classes" within the current role-oriented system. Classical two-weapon fighting, i.e. gaining additional attacks, leads directly to higher damage output. In 4E, high damage output is the province of strikers. Allowing defenders (fighter, paladin) and leaders (warlord, some clerics) to readily double their damage output at the cost of a few feats (which are far more abundant in 4E than in 3.5E) makes it easy and inexpensive for them to take over the role of striker while still playing their normal role. Fighters were originally the kings of melee damage output, as well as theoretically the damage sponge. 4E designers needed to assign roles to various classes, and in doing so chose to make the Fighter a defender rather than a striker. I think that choice fits better with the long time philosophy of the fighter, even if it infringes on some of the previous mechanical benefits of a fighter. Similarly, they chose to make the ranger a striker. While it's probable that Drizzt influenced that choice, it makes sense from a long term flavor standpoint as well: the ranger has always been a lightly armored, wilderness based hunter-flavored version of a fighter. It's far easier to translate that flavor into a 4E striker than a 4E defender. Once you've chosen the striker role for the ranger, classical two-weapon fighting becomes a very reasonable thing to assign to the class. So, while I sympathize with your frustration from a flavor standpoint, I can't agree with your arguments that the system would have been better served by allowing classical two-weapon fighting to be accessible by all or most classes, nor that the designers failed to consider historical context when creating the new system. 4E discards and/or modifies a ton of long-term D&D standards, and I'm confident that in each case, the decision to change was considered, contemplated, and probably agonized over by the designers. t~ [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Two-Weapon Fighting Rules?
Top