Tempest fighter and multi-classing

[Chzbro]

As you can hopefully tell, in general I agree with you. I only want to point out, though, that while Reaping Strike specifies two-handed weapons, the Bloodclaw weapon actually does read for a weapon wielded in two hands -- which therefore does allow for versatile weapons to gain an extra damage bonus dependent upon how it is wielded.

-Dan'L

The clarification is appreciated. I'm pretty sure I would have never noted the distinction otherwise.

And since I do love to bemoan how broken that enchant is, it's probably best if I actually know how it works .

 

[DracoSuave]

While I'll happily admit that my opinion might be wrong, I don't think the situation is "exactly" like the wizard situation. The wizard treats his longsword as though it were a wand, yes, but "wand" is not a weapon property; it's an implement. So Wizards treating their swords as if they were wands would be the same as the multi-class ranger treating his sword as if it were a dagger (or handaxe or whatever) and taking all the hits to damage dice and the like. But that's not what the feat says.

In D&D4, 'wield/use foo as though it were/instead of/as a [/i]bar' has a specific meaning: That anything that benefits/hinders bar is applied to foo. So yes, it is -exactly- the same.

'Use sword as though it were wand' means stuff benefitting wand benefits sword. It has nothing to do with weapon types or implement types, but the general rules template.

Is weapon in your off-hand? Check. Is it one-handed? Check. So you treat it as though it were an off-hand weapon. That means not only is this configuration permissible, you get the damage bonus from tempest. Otherwise, you are -not- treating it as though it were an off-hand weapon, and you are not obeying the pertinent rule.

Contrast with 'You may wield one-handed weapons without the off-hand property in your off-hand.' That is a different rule, and applies different baggage.

The rule is granting an exception to a general rule, but it's not the exception you think. It's not saying 'You can wield non-off-hand weapons in your off hand.' it's saying 'The benefits of the off-hand property are applied to all one-handed weapons in your off-hand' which is absolutely different.


And as well, it doesn't do anything for a weapon in your main-hand, so if you want the damage bonus, make that an off-hand weapon. Double-weapons are -still- the place to go here.

 

[Starfox]

Is weapon in your off-hand? Check.

Whether the weapon is in your off-hand or not has no bearing on a tempest fighter's damage bonus. "Off-hand" is a weapon quality, which can be relevant (as it is for a tempest) whether the weapon is in your off hand or main hand. And I think that is the key here.

 

[DracoSuave]

Whether the weapon is in your off-hand or not has no bearing on a tempest fighter's damage bonus. "Off-hand" is a weapon quality, which can be relevant (as it is for a tempest) whether the weapon is in your off hand or main hand. And I think that is the key here.

And when said weapon is in your off-hand, you treat it 'as if it had the off-hand property.'

That's the point. It isn't that it is in your off-hand, but that the feat allows you to treat it as an off-hand weapon.

Which means it benefits from rules for that property, as per the template for all other 'as if it were a ______' abilities.

 

[Starfox]

Two-Blade Warrior [Multiclass Ranger]
Prerequisite: Str 13, Dex 13
Benefit: You gain training in one skill from the ranger’s class skill list.
You can wield a one-handed weapon in your off hand as though it were an off-hand weapon.

This has two interpretations:

[You can wield a one-handed weapon in your off hand] [as though it were an off-hand weapon].

In this reading, what the feat allows is just the wielding; it does not actually hand out the property.


You can wield a [one-handed weapon] [in your off hand] [as though it were] an [off-hand weapon].

In this reading, the off-hand weapon gains the full benefit of the off-hand property.



I think both are semantically correct; this is just an illustration how infernally hard it is to write rules that are clear (and why we have lawyers). I still favor the first interpretation, as that leads to less complications, but I admit both readings are semantically possible.

 

[Chzbro]

I agree.

I can see both interpretations being valid. I tend to gravitate toward the first because

1) that is, strictly speaking, what the feat says (unless you interpret "as if it were" to always mean a very specific thing in WotC speak--which I'm perfectly willing to accept it might although I can't find a specific reference that spells this out)

2) it "feels" more balanced to me and fits more accurately with the way I understand other weapon properties to work (although I know this is a completely subjective way to look at it).

Ultimately, I don't see either interpretation tipping the balance scales so terribly that it should have a large enough effect on any individual game to "break" anything.

Sure is fun to debate, though.