You know 4th edition has succeeded when...

[Bialaska]

Well, you're incorrect there. . . in D&D 4e, Two-Weapon Fighting is a feat that a member of any class can take, provided that they have a DEX scroe of 13 or higher.

Two weapon fighting only gives you a damage bonus when you wield a weapon in each hand. To use both weapons at the same time you need Twin Blades or other Ranger exploits.

 

[Incendax]

Because in 3.5, all of my wife's friends were interested in playing, but became bored and frustrated trying to read through the Player's Handbook.

Since 4E came out, I came home from work one day to find three women waiting for me to get home so I would go with them to pick out miniatures.

I now run for an all girl gaming group. They not only enjoy reading the 4E Player's Handbook, but dig through it for inspiration on their own time.

 

[The Cardinal]

please don't answer tih something along the lines of: IT'S BEEN A SUCCESS BECAUSE WE DIDN'T LIKE IT AND WON'T BE BUYING IT!!!! SNARK sNARK

hey, no problem

 

[jdrakeh]

Two weapon fighting only gives you a damage bonus when you wield a weapon in each hand. To use both weapons at the same time you need Twin Blades or other Ranger exploits.

Really? My PHB doesn't say that anywhere. According to mine, you don't need the Ranger power to wield two weapons or use them, only to attack with both of them in the same round. As a Rogue, you can still take the Two Weapon Fighting and Two Weapon Defense feats -- neither lists the Ranger class or powers as a prerequisite.

 

[Bialaska]

Really? My PHB doesn't say that anywhere. According to mine, you don't need the Ranger power to wield two weapons or use them, only to attack with both of them in the same round. As a Rogue, you can still take the Two Weapon Fighting and Two Weapon Defense feats -- neither lists the Ranger class or powers as a prerequisite.

Well, I did say: To use both weapons at the same time you need Twin Blades or other Ranger exploits. I didn't say To wield. You can wield both a rapier and a dagger, but you cannot use/attack with both at the same time.

 

[jdrakeh]

Well, I did say: To use both weapons at the same time you need Twin Blades or other Ranger exploits. I didn't say To wield. You can wield both a rapier and a dagger, but you cannot use/attack with both at the same time.

In your second post. Your initial complaint was that "Rangers are the only two-blade wielders" (your words, not mine) which is untrue. I do concede that you're correct if you interpret the word "use" to specifically mean "attack with both weapons simultaneously" (I took the word "use" to mean "to avail oneself of" per common er. . . use. . . of the word). So, you can create a Rogue who wields and fights with two weapons in D&D 4e, you simply can't attack with both simultaneously (gaining an extra attack per round) unless you're a Ranger.

 

[Monkey Boy]

Really? My PHB doesn't say that anywhere. According to mine, you don't need the Ranger power to wield two weapons or use them, only to attack with both of them in the same round. As a Rogue, you can still take the Two Weapon Fighting and Two Weapon Defense feats -- neither lists the Ranger class or powers as a prerequisite.

This is disingenuous. You are redifining two weapon fighting. 4e makes it mean something else entirely for everyone except the ranger. The poster was trying to recreate a character they had in 3.5 they couldn't do it in 4e. Case closed.

 

[Henry]

OK, tough talk time:

Since when does saying something positive about a game consitute open season for other people to say negative things about it? Saying one game can do something is not "insult by omission." Let's can the rest of the 3e vs. 4e talk right now, please. If 4e succeeded for you in some way, like the OP was talking about, GO FOR IT! If you want to shoot off snide comments, or ASSUME someone hates your favorite game by saying good things about another, KNOCK IT OFF.

I had no problem with posts like Shemeska's and Psions - making a point about system neutrality is not a bad thing. The ones who cross the line are the ones who start talking about how "4e can't handle a concept" or "4e is for goth chicks." All you're going to do is get yourselves BANNED.

There is plenty of opportunity to rave about 3e in this forum - make your own! Anyone remember Buttercup's "I love OGL" thread? Think positive, not negative, and we can make this a lot happier place!

Anyone not on board with this? E-mail me.

Thanks.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

This is disingenuous. You are redifining two weapon fighting. 4e makes it mean something else entirely for everyone except the ranger. The poster was trying to recreate a character they had in 3.5 they couldn't do it in 4e. Case closed.

The point is - a new system means you have to represent a character using the new mechanics. Two-Weapon Fighting in 4E has two possible incarnations - using Ranger powers, or using the Two-Weapon Fighting feats. 3E had only the feats. I can't replicate my 3E Wizard either if I narrow things down to "having a Raven familiar" and "necromancy specialist means I have to have a +2 bonus on my Spellcraft checks to identify necromancy spells".

Two Weapon Fighting and Two-Weapon Fighting defense are well suited to create a two-weapon fighter. Such a character gains the benefits of a shield and Weapon Focus independent of the weapon he uses and without needing to wield a shield. And unlike the 3E two-weapon fighting, he retains his full mobility when using multiple weapons.

(If you want to continue discussing this topic instead of the original ones, the new "Fork to new Thread" feature might be helpful. Because we're really going off-topic here...)

 

[Arawn76]

The biggest success for 4e for me is the love for DM's. In 20 years of running AD&D/3.x games (to make fair comparison) and not including editions that are basically for 7-9 year olds this has to be the easiest to prep mechanically.

I love writing stories and adventures for my group but I hate attaching the mechanics so much that I've only used preprinted modules in the last 3-4 years.

I know I find myself full circle and without the accompanying nose bleeds