Two-blades ranger with two bastards - kosher?

[Moon-Lancer]

If we were talking almost any other version of D&D than 4e, you'd have a better point. But when you're playing a game where all wounds heal overnight, where it's as easy to keep a frost giant grabbed as it is a kobold (of the same level and strength), and where the rogue can make an "immobilized" being leap 20 feet to the left by stabbing it with a dagger, worrying about being able to "realistically" wield two huge swords is rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic -- when it's on the bottom of the sea.

In 4e the game can be very different depending on how the flavor is interpreted. parts that can be made better or more realistic, should be as long as it is not at the expense of the rules. Parts that have no historical precedent like magic really cant be criticized in a historical manor. Magic can however be criticized in a literary fiction or cinematic manor though.

I think saying because magic exists thus the game cant be realistic is a bit extreme. Its a slippery slop. its like saying a needle should and can do more damage then a longsword not because of magic but simply because magic exists in the same world and no part of the fantasy world should resemble the real world.

All and all its a flavor thing. I like historical longsword fencing in real life, thus when i play d&d that's how I imagine it. Its hard for me to imagine dual wielding longswords because i have tried it and because i know how important the second hand is when using 46-50 inch swords. Other people have different backgrounds and may play WOW or Warhammer or Anime (which i also like) and that's all fine, I am just presenting my point of view and the flavor i like in d&d.

 

[Lizard]

I think saying because magic exists thus the game cant be realistic is a bit extreme. Its a slippery slop. its like saying a needle should and can do more damage then a longsword not because of magic but simply because magic exists in the same world and no part of the fantasy world should resemble the real world.

Yeah. So, uhm, did you read what I wrote? At all?

All wounds healing overnight -- not due to magic.
No size modifiers to grab -- not due to magic.
Positioning Strike -- not a magical ability.

Further, these are all things doable by low-level characters. They don't require "Epic" or even "Paragon" abilities.

Given all the "unrealistic" things you can do purely as a "Martial" character in 4e, wielding 2 bastard swords isn't even CLOSE to tipping my suspension of disbelief. You're already so far into the realm of over-the-top anime/wire-fu/FPS action that there's really no point in drawing any further lines.

The "physics" of the 4e world already allow "normal" (non-magical human) people to do amazing things. Wielding 2 bastard swords is just one more thing. Given that, all that really matter is: Is it COOL?

And, yes. It is. Totally.

 

[Moon-Lancer]

Yeah. So, uhm, did you read what I wrote? At all?

I did. I also said its a matter of interpreting.

All wounds healing overnight -- not due to magic.

HP does not have a direct correlation with wounds, only with the ability and will to stay alive. I think fighting with minor wounds that are bandaged and covered in blood is cool.

No size modifiers to grab -- not due to magic.

with a cleaver dm, this can make for some funny encounters.

Positioning Strike -- not a magical ability.

I don't see a problem with someone coating their blade in poison before they attack.

Is it COOL?

define cool? want me to post videos of inexperienced larps and their attempt at dual welding lance sized swords? ;p and these are ultra lights...

 

[Lizard]

I did. I also said its a matter of interpreting.
HP does not have a direct correlation with wounds, only with the ability and will to stay alive. I think fighting with minor wounds that are bandaged and covered in blood is cool.
with a cleaver dm, this can make for some funny encounters.
I don't see a problem with someone coating their blade in poison before they attack.

define cool? want me to post videos of inexperienced larps and their attempt at dual welding lance sized swords? ;p and these are ultra lights...

Positioning, not poisoning. It's a rogue ability, 1st level, which lets a rogue attack a target and slide them up to Charisma modifier squares. Even if the target is utterly and completely incapable of moving, the rogue moves them. (The immobilized condition does not apply to forced movement.)

You may not find that annoying. I do. You find dual-wielding bastard swords annoying. I don't. So it goes.

But claiming there is any pretense to "realism" in 4e is as silly as claiming D&D was ever "Historically accurate". Even going back to "Brown Box" days, the game drew from a huge range of sources from across about 1,000 years of time and the works of a good dozen fantasy and SF authors.

 

[Moon-Lancer]

Positioning, not poisoning. It's a rogue ability, 1st level, which lets a rogue attack a target and slide them up to Charisma modifier squares. Even if the target is utterly and completely incapable of moving, the rogue moves them. (The immobilized condition does not apply to forced movement.)

Whats wrong with kicking some guy around who cant move himself?

 

[Herschel]

Yeah, those historical rust monsters, gelatinous cubes, and xorn...not to mention Vance's wizards, Tolkien's elves, Celtic druids, Arthurian knights, and Shao-lin monks all going into battle against Poul Anderson's trolls and Lovecraftian mind flayers. Yeah. Historical accuracy has been the basis of D&D since 1975. Yup. No doubt about it.

If we were talking almost any other version of D&D than 4e, you'd have a better point. But when you're playing a game where all wounds heal overnight, where it's as easy to keep a frost giant grabbed as it is a kobold (of the same level and strength), and where the rogue can make an "immobilized" being leap 20 feet to the left by stabbing it with a dagger, worrying about being able to "realistically" wield two huge swords is rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic -- when it's on the bottom of the sea.

Your first paragraph is simple trolling and childish. You don't even attempt to address the basic premise of my statement or defend yours in any reasonable way. If you want to debate, step up to the table and have a good take.

As for your second, I can agree with much of it. There is a lot of "nonsense" in 4E. But the difference is "how much is too much" for the people playing. Where does the line get drawn? That's where differing opinions occur.

I've outlined where mine are and backed them up with solid logic and facts. You flip-flop between saying "reality doesn't count, it's fantasy (a perfectly valid viewpoint I don't think anyone would disagree with even if they don't prefer it that way) and a gross misrepresentation of logic and science and history.

I can respect the former, but will call you out on the latter.

 

[Dracorat]

... It's a rogue ability, 1st level, which lets a rogue attack a target and slide them up to Charisma modifier squares. Even if the target is utterly and completely incapable of moving, the rogue moves them. (The immobilized condition does not apply to forced movement.)

You may not find that annoying. I do. ...

Yeah, because once you're coated in spider's webbing, roped up, hog tied, tarred and then wrapped in silk, no one could ever move you since you can't move yourself. All movement has to be initiated from the person moved, after all.

Don't try to push Cacoon Man. It won't work. He can't move himself, so you can't neither.

Don't try running a truck in to him. He can't move himself, so the truck can't either.

Don't try a torrent of water ... because ... well, you know...

 

[Mort]

As for your second, I can agree with much of it. There is a lot of "nonsense" in 4E. But the difference is "how much is too much" for the people playing. Where does the line get drawn? That's where differing opinions occur
.

Attempting to "blame" dual wielding on 4e is misguided. Dual weilding large weapons has been around since at least 2e (I can't offhand remember if it was an option for 1e PCs or limited to races like drow)- and with a good dex was a actually a superior option in 2e.

But "real life" effectiveness aside, it's a cool (for many) cinematic option that's no more cheesy than wielding a large two handed sword like it was a longsword.

Also, I'm always amazed at the number of people willing to waive away a huge amount of cheese for magic users because "it's magic" but unwilling to bend even a little for fighters because they see something as unrealistic. My take has always been that if it's cinematically fun and interesting (read something I could easily see in an action or fantasy movie) I'm willing to give it a fair shot it D&D as well.

 

[Dracorat]

For the record, there are some weapons intended to be dual wielded in real life.

Escrima Sticks, Sais, and even some Wakisashi style fighting. The part that gets blended is when you're talking about medieval weaponry instead of Oriental weaponry.

Yay imagination. At least it lends to interesting situations.

(Hell, who could ever really learn to wield a spiked chain in combat and not kill themselves? Really?)

 

[ArmoredSaint]

I like history in my D&D, and while I recognize that plenty of other people let the so-called "Rule of Cool" guide their gaming choices, I can't help but feel that the style of gameplay that revolves around people playing wacky things like a half-drow, half-dragon, half-goliath multiclassed gestalt Rogue/Monk/Swordsage/Dragon Shaman/Druid dual-wielding spiked chains and mercurial fullblades is just shallow and hopelessly puerile.

If offered the opportunity to play in two games, one a low-magic, historically-based game, and the other an over-the-top, anime-style fanboi fantasy, I'll pick the historical game every time.

Seriously, I just have such trouble understanding why some people prefer the "k3wl p0w3rz" approach to gaming. It just feels like a caricature of the real thing. For me, a firm grounding in history is cool; a well-crafted historical setting is a pleasure, and feels like someone put genuine effort into it. Anime-style gameplay feels hollow and lazy. What attracts people to it? I'm genuinely trying to understand the phenomenon. How could the "Dungeonpunk" aesthetic hold any appeal over something real? I feel that medieval-esque fantasy gaming loses something when it strays too far from its roots. The commonly-repeated mantra: "Well, (*insert fantasy gaming setting of choice here*) isn't medieval Europe, so it doesn't have to conform to historical assumptions" feels like an excuse for laziness.

"But unrealistically huge swords and drow stripperninja chicks, and funny races, and spiked chains are so cool!" you say. I certainly don't think so. What defines "cool" is highly subjective. For me, historically-inspired games are cool; "k3wl p0w3rz" gameplay seems to me to be grossly overdone nowadays, and I'm tired of it defining the fantasy genre. Hasn't everyone had enough of the Dragonball-Z style imagery by now? It's had it's day. It's old and tired. It feels so uninspired and uninformed. I'd like to see the hobby collectively discover how much more awesome the historical European middle ages/Renaissance are than haphazardly thrown-together, sloppy, vapid modern fantasy fiction.

The "Rule of Cool" isn't.

Just my opinion, which--I'm sure--won't be popular...