Two-blades ranger with two bastards - kosher?

[Herschel]

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.

Another gross misrepresentation of what was said. Where did I "blame" dual-wielding on 4e? Also, large weapons were not allowed to be dual-wielded in 2e, at least through the handbooks. There were strict penalties for dual-wielding and the off-hand weapon needed to be small. The Fighters Handbook opened things up a bit with style specializaton but not to large weapons. The most damaging combo you could generally use was a Long Sword/Hand Axe combo.

 

[comrade raoul]

Style specialization could totally get you two longswords--the 2e fighter's default choice.

Look: you might think that paired longswords is abhorrent from a stylistic perspective. That's fine.

What's misguided, however, is condemning players who choose to use two bastard swords as immature munchkins or powergamers. The PH rules were clearly written with the awareness that many players would choose this build, and balanced accordingly. More generally, modern D&D rules are written under the assumption that players do, and should, optimize their characters to a reasonable extent--essentially, as much as they can within the spirit of the rules. Unless you have a very mature group (who expect and are okay with this sort of thing), you really, really shouldn't insist that a player make a suboptimal choice out of flavor considerations. That's just not fair!

 

[Lord Ernie]

I don't see how 'a well-crafted historical setting' and 'k3wl p0w3rz" are mutually exclusive, or indeed, even oppose one another. I've both run and played in games which had a rich backstory and lots of roleplaying going on, and which had the ranger dual wielding bastard swords - and that was the least bit of the "k3wl p0w3rz" in that game (on a sidenote, I'm definitely not an anime fan).

Honestly, now people seem to accept the 'roll vs role' debate is utterly useless and really isn't one, are we going to have a 'cool vs. well-crafted' debate?

 

[Kordeth]

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.

For the same reason the ancient Greeks told stories about the fabled strength of the demigod Hercules instead of about Hoplite Stephanos who died of cholera on his first campaign. For the same reason the Celts sang songs of Cuchulainn, the warrior so powerful he turned into a monster when he went to battle. For the same reason the medieval Franks exagerrated the legends of Charlemagne and Roland into such heights of ridiculous heroism that if a completely faithful version of the original chansons des gestes were filmed and put on screen, people would decry it as "over-the-top, anime-style fanboi fantasy. For the same reason that, dangit, sometimes you just want to watch The Transporter instead of Citizen Kane.

People have always loved stories about powerful, epic heroes. People will always continue to like stories about mighty, epic heroes. Stories about mighty, epic heroes and stories with deep, engaging settings grounded in plausibility are not mutually exclusive.

 

[Herschel]

Style specialization could totally get you two longswords--the 2e fighter's default choice.

Look: you might think that paired longswords is abhorrent from a stylistic perspective. That's fine.

What's misguided, however, is condemning players who choose to use two bastard swords as immature munchkins or powergamers. The PH rules were clearly written with the awareness that many players would choose this build, and balanced accordingly. More generally, modern D&D rules are written under the assumption that players do, and should, optimize their characters to a reasonable extent--essentially, as much as they can within the spirit of the rules. Unless you have a very mature group (who expect and are okay with this sort of thing), you really, really shouldn't insist that a player make a suboptimal choice out of flavor considerations. That's just not fair!

Again with the blatant misrepresentation of what was said, at least on what I said. Where did I condemn someone for playing that? I pointed out the unrealistic nature of it and why I don't like it. I didn't say anyone was immature for playing it and acknowledged that they can play whatever style they want. Repeatedly.

As for two Long Swords, that's still different from two Bastard Swords (which yes, I didn't go for either because the flavor was wrong). But the 2e rule was outlined as 'easily wielded with one hand' which a Long Sword is, a Bastard Sword is not.

And if you do play that combo, yes, you are a powergamer/munchkin/whatever you want to call it. That's flat-out min-maxing. And I never said it was bad, just not my taste. If players min/max, so likely does the DM. It's a slightly different style of game from what I prefer but then so is/was Planescape, Red Masque, and any number of others that I thought were great ideas, but not for me.

 

[Ahglock]

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...

Its like a CHr based move. You are misdirecting them into moving on their own 4 squares while immobilized. That is the problem people have with it. They could care less if something like thunderwave pushes them 4 squares.

 

[Ahglock]

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.

Since we are digressing.. One of my issues with 4e is they either went to far with superpower, suspension of disbelief craziness or not far enough. Turn off my mind to standard action movie level, fine. Turn off my mind to Commando level of action move(2nd greatest movie of all time, only beat by Predator) still cool. I cross the commando threshold on believability, and I want bigger super powers than what I got. I want to make a Naruto campaign dang it. I should try to find a Naruto rpg I think, since I really want to run a campaign based on Naruto.

 

[Lizard]

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

You're a 10 Strength halfling and it's an elder dragon?

Sure, I can keep coming up with examples, and you can keep finding ways to "justify" them -- but you can't justify swinging two big swords?

 

[Lizard]

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...

Which might make a lot of sense if the movement was some sort of Str based attack, but it's based on Charisma and is the province of dextrous rogues -- and, again, ignores mass completely.

You can think of *some* circumstances where it can work. In 4e, it works in ALL circumstances, no questions asked.

And if you can accept that, you can accept dual wielding bastard swords. And if you can't accept dual wielding bastard swords, I think 4e is not the game for you.

 

[Lizard]

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.

Actually, I did address it, quite directly.

The default milieu (I learned that word from Gary!) for D&D, going all the way back to the Little Brown Books, was an ahistorical mish-mash of countless sources from many periods in history and many different fantasy and science fiction authors. It can in no way be considered historically accurate in any way, as it mixes weapons and armor from across history, and includes character archetypes modeled on wildly different times and cultures (and works of pure fiction).