What is the penalty to attack with 2 weapons....

[Dr_Ruminahui]

Hmmm... I disagree.

I think the opperative word is "wielding" - the ranger ability allows you to wield two weapons even if one of them isn't offhand.

As far as I can see, "wielding" and "holding" don't mean the same thing - "wielding" means having it in your hand ready and able to use as a weapon, holding means simply having it in your hand.

By your argument, a non-ranger couldn't attack while holding a sword and a bottle of wine in one hand - a bottle of wine is an improvised weapon, without the offhand property. Indeed, they couldn't attack with a sword while having nothing in your other hand, as the ability to punch someone is also an improvised weapon.

Rather, one can hold something in either hand, but simply not be able to attack with it. So, one could have a longsword in each hand, but only one of which the character can "wield" at a given time. Its no different than holding your greatsword with one hand so that one can pull out a dagger and throw it at someone (or holding your crossbow with one hand so you can draw a sword and stab someone) - holding something in your other hand doesn't magically prevent you from doing anything.

Indeed, the fact that with a light shield specifically explicitly states you can hold (but not wield) a weapon in the shield to me indicates that the two terms are NOT synonymous in 4e.

 

[Kingreaper]

Rather, one can hold something in either hand, but simply not be able to attack with it. So, one could have a longsword in each hand, but only one of which the character can "wield" at a given time.

The one in your offhand cannot be wielded until you transfer it to your main hand. (probably using a minor action or two)


It is not an offhand weapon, and only offhand weapons can be wielded while in your offhand.

As I showed with the ranger quote, handedness exists at all times by RAI.

edit:

Some one-handed weapons are light enough for
you to use in your off hand while holding another
one-handed weapon in your other hand. Doing this
doesn’t let you make multiple attacks in a round
(unless you have powers that let you do so), but you
can attack with either weapon.

If your weapon ISN'T light enough for that, you can't wield it while it's in your offhand, by clear RAI. There's no rule specifically saying you can't, but then there's no rule specifically saying you can't treat any random weapon as versatile.

 

[MrBeens]

The one in your offhand cannot be wielded until you transfer it to your main hand. (probably using a minor action or two)


It is not an offhand weapon, and only offhand weapons can be wielded while in your offhand.

As I showed with the ranger quote, handedness exists at all times by RAI.

edit:

If your weapon ISN'T light enough for that, you can't wield it while it's in your offhand, by clear RAI. There's no rule specifically saying you can't, but then there's no rule specifically saying you can't treat any random weapon as versatile.

In 4th edition holding and wielding are not the same thing.
Wielding is defined as using the item to attack.
Any character can hold a longsword in either hand and use either of them to attack.
If that character has an ability (like twin strike) that has the requirement of wielding 2 weapons then he cannot use the 2 longswords unless he is a 2W ranger.
The off hand property mearly enables you to use it at the same time as another weapon.

There is no defined concept of what is your main hand and what is your other hand, you don't need to keep track of what is in which hand.

If you have 2 weapons with the off hand property and use a multi weapon attack that specifies one to be the "main" weapon, you choose at the point of attacking.

 

[Kingreaper]

In 4th edition holding and wielding are not the same thing.

Some one-handed weapons are light enough for
you to use in your off hand while holding another
one-handed weapon in your other hand. Doing this
doesn’t let you make multiple attacks in a round
(unless you have powers that let you do so), but you
can attack with either weapon.

You can only wield a weapon in your off-hand while holding one in your main hand if the weapon is an offhand weapon.

There is no defined concept of what is your main hand and what is your other hand, you don't need to keep track of what is in which hand.

Remember this:

Two-Blade Fighting Style: Because of your
focus on two-weapon melee attacks, you can wield a
one-handed weapon in your off hand as if it were an
off-hand weapon. (Make sure to designate on your
character sheet which weapon is main and which is offhand.)
In addition, you gain Toughness as a bonus feat.

Off hand and main hand are defined.

They're not defined in terms of left and right, but they are defined.

 

[Mort_Q]

Off hand and main hand are defined.

They're not defined in terms of left and right, but they are defined.

... but only if you're a specific type of Ranger.

 

[Otterscrubber]

So back to my point, is there any other feats or abilities in game that allow a ranger who is not a two blade ranger to wield 2 one-hand weapons?

 

[Felon]

So back to my point, is there any other feats or abilities in game that allow a ranger who is not a two blade ranger to wield 2 one-hand weapons?

Well, there are a billion Dragon Mag artciles out now, so there's GOTTA be some magic item property whose sole function is to let your treat the weapon as an off-hand weapon. And if not, well--Dragon Mags bring to 4e the addage about a million monkeys typing away for eternity. Just a matter of time.

But unless such a thing rears its head, the answer would seem to be no. You need to be a two-weapon style ranger, a whirling-frenzy barbarian, a hybrid thereof, or get a similar benefit by using a double-weapon.

 

[mneme]

CB doesn't have one. If you're not a ranger, it's not that hard -- you multiclass into ranger. If you are a ranger, though? Not so much.

 

[MrBeens]

You can only wield a weapon in your off-hand while holding one in your main hand if the weapon is an offhand weapon.



Remember this:



Off hand and main hand are defined.

They're not defined in terms of left and right, but they are defined.

Only because some multi weapon attacks have different effects for the main and offhand attacks.
For everyone else it does not matter and never comes into play.

 

[Kingreaper]

Only because some multi weapon attacks have different effects for the main and offhand attacks.
For everyone else it does not matter and never comes into play.

Some one-handed weapons are light enough for
you to use in your off hand while holding another
one-handed weapon in your other hand. Doing this
doesn’t let you make multiple attacks in a round
(unless you have powers that let you do so), but you
can attack with either weapon.

(you can only "attack with either weapon" if one of them is off-hand. This is made very much explicit, I'm not sure how you've kept missing it)
If there is no distinction between off-hand and on-hand, you cannot wield a one-handed weapon in EITHER hand while holding one in your other.

Note that it does say: HOLDING, not WIELDING, so you can't get out of it with that distinction.


If there IS a distinction, you simply cannot wield the one in your off-hand.



Or are you willing to argue that the off-hand ability is not what it says it is?