Two-blades ranger with two bastards - kosher?

[Lizard]

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.

Then NO version of D&D is for you, and 4e least of all.

Which is perfectly fine with me. I would recommend GURPS, which is very easily tuned from "completely realistic" to "off the wall", with the GM having full control over where the dial is set.

D&D, to me, has ALWAYS been about the Wacky, which is why I think 2e is my least favorite -- it was bland, boring, and flavorless, at least until the Planescape/Spelljammer days, and by that time, I was much more interested in other systems.

 

[Ahglock]

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).

Fiction!! Fiction!!! Are you trying to tell me Remo Williams is fiction. That is such bunk, super powered monk assassins are totally working for the USA, right this minute. When details of there exploits were going to be revealed to the public they created a series of novels pushing reality as a fictional story. The destroyer novels were just concocted as a cover up. I can't beelive people still buy this fictional story whoppla.

 

[Moon-Lancer]

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?

Your comparing rules with a lack of oversight to explicate rules design.

how is it again that your justifying swinging two big swords?

 

[Mort]

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.

First, please point out the misrepresentation (I especially like the word gross). You stated there "is a lot of nonsense in 4e" in a thread about dual wielding bastard swords - it's not exactly a leap to say that you meant dual wielding bastard swords is part of that nonsense.

Second, You'll get a lot farther in your arguments if you don't blatantly insult any opinion/position that disagrees with you. For example saying you disagree with the whole double wielding 2 weapons thing - perfectly ok. Calling anyone who likes it a powergamer/munchkin (something with clearly negative connotations, especially in this forum) and otherwise implying badwrongfun for a style preference- not ok.

Third, you completely ignored the more relevant part of the post. Why is it okay spellcasters be mythic, fantastic and overall cinematic but fighters have to be grounded in reality or it's "cheesy?"

 

[Ahglock]

Your comparing rules with a lack of oversight to explicate rules design.

how is it again that your justifying swinging two big swords?

I think they are both explicit rules design. It is explicit rules design the halflings can wraslte dragons and explicit rules design that you can dual wield bastard swords.
With powers like hail of arrows being martial exploits and not magical powers it seems clear that it is explicit rules design that ordinary characters defy what is physically possible. They don't put mods in for size, because one they aren't worrying about details like physics when cool is involved, and two it is built into the streamlined system of there defense stats, and three it isn't unbalanced.

explicit rules design in both cases.
1; Is it cool. Check
2. does it fit into the basic streamlined rules. Check
3. In it balanced Check

 

[Ahglock]

Third, you completely ignored the more relevant part of the post. Why is it okay spellcasters be mythic, fantastic and overall cinematic but fighters have to be grounded in reality or it's "cheesy?"

Not that I agree with his points, but that is a fairly common take and not illogical. Magic, being well magic and not following basic scientific laws does not have to be grounded in reality. There is no magic to in reality to compare it to and say, magic doe not work that way. Non-magical characters well do exist in reality. And you have a fairly good idea on what is possible and what is not and what goes too far. So when you see Arnold jump out of a plane that is flying like 5 stories high in the air land on the ground and keep running, you kind of stop and say wait what? My suspension of disbelief meter just got busted.

 

[Lizard]

Your comparing rules with a lack of oversight to explicate rules design.

I cannot parse this sentence.

how is it again that your justifying swinging two big swords?

Years of training. Uber muscles. Odd weighting. I'm just THAT AWESOME. Or how about the fact there are, per the rules, NO restrictions on strength and weapons? I can have a Strength of 3, and still do more damage with a greatsword than I do with a dagger.

 

[Herschel]

First, please point out the misrepresentation (I especially like the word gross). You stated there "is a lot of nonsense in 4e" in a thread about dual wielding bastard swords - it's not exactly a leap to say that you meant dual wielding bastard swords is part of that nonsense.

Second, You'll get a lot farther in your arguments if you don't blatantly insult any opinion/position that disagrees with you. For example saying you disagree with the whole double wielding 2 weapons thing - perfectly ok. Calling anyone who likes it a powergamer/munchkin (something with clearly negative connotations, especially in this forum) and otherwise implying badwrongfun for a style preference- not ok.

Third, you completely ignored the more relevant part of the post. Why is it okay spellcasters be mythic, fantastic and overall cinematic but fighters have to be grounded in reality or it's "cheesy?"

1. I have posted in many threads how much I dislike 4E healing and other concepts in the game. I did not choose to re-open that whole line in this thread trying to keep on-topic. I can agree whole-heartedly with Lizard on the "movement" bit also, as well as I dislike the new "non-lethal" damage rules.

2. I did not insult anyone's opinion. Where have I said powergaming is bad? In fact, I said the opposite, just that it's not MY preference. I pointed out MY preferences. Maybe you should deal with that as I am best qualified to present my opinion vs. someone else's don't you think? Oh wait, I didn't agree with you so who's attacking whom?

3. Because fighters are/were "real". Wizards were not, in the D&D sense. Fighters can be "real" and "cinematic" at the same time, the amount of cheese individuals or groups like or perceive varies.

 

[Herschel]

(Justification as to 'why two bastard swords)

1. Years of training. Uber muscles. Odd weighting. I'm just THAT AWESOME.

2. Or how about the fact there are, per the rules, NO restrictions on strength and weapons? I can have a Strength of 3, and still do more damage with a greatsword than I do with a dagger.

Which is two concepts.

1. Has been shown to be illogical and unrealistic, which is why some don't like it.

2. Is perfectly fine and allows you to do something in the game despite the impossibility of it working properly in "real life".

People are outlining why they don't like/allow a certain concept in the games they play. That's all.

 

[Mort]

Not that I agree with his points, but that is a fairly common take and not illogical. Magic, being well magic and not following basic scientific laws does not have to be grounded in reality. There is no magic to in reality to compare it to and say, magic doe not work that way. Non-magical characters well do exist in reality. And you have a fairly good idea on what is possible and what is not and what goes too far. So when you see Arnold jump out of a plane that is flying like 5 stories high in the air land on the ground and keep running, you kind of stop and say wait what? My suspension of disbelief meter just got busted.

But that's the point. If you're willing to accept fireball throwing wizards, teleporting at (near) will elves etc. Why can you not accept that someone is physicaly adept enough to jump five stories without dying? Is it realistic? not at all, but it's well within cinematic convention.

If you're going to move the suspension of disbelief bar, why are you only moving it for one class of characters? I just find it silly to think "magic missle throwing wizard - wow that's cool"; fighter that can wield 2 large blades
"oh that's cheesy, you'd never see that in real life."