NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Mercule" data-source="post: 4071918" data-attributes="member: 5100">That doesn't justify TWF for rangers, though.  Single weapon style may or may not be bright, but it is no less so for a ranger than a burly fighter.  One could actually argue that it would be smarter for the ranger because it frees up a hand to use for those grabs or to help him control himself and balance in rough terrain or a variety of other reasons.If your argument holds for ranger, it holds for both rogue and fighter, too.  Those classes should have a TWF option built in.Actually, I'd put forth that a ranger should get a bonus for using a single weapon in an outdoors setting.  He now has a hand free to manipulate the woods as only he can.  Which, of course, actually makes sense in 3e where the ranger had spells to represent his woodsy tricks, but had to have a hand free to cast them.Any 3e ranger that actually did wield two weapons was throwing away a lot more advantage than one who didn't dual wield.D&D also imitates heroic fantasy more than it does realistic swordplay.  Single wielding is pretty common in most genre pieces.  It also isn't horribly sub-optimal compared to most styles in D&D.  Within the D&D-verse, the "it's foolish to fight with only one light weapon" argument is simply untrue.Because a back-up weapon must be co-wielded?  That doesn't make any sense.  I absolutely agree that a ranger is likely to have utility weapons, like something I heard once: A dagger or axe doesn't count as armed.  Those are just tools that have some extra uses.That still doesn't make a ranger any more likely to dual wield, though.Of course, D&D does not actually have mechanics for the way most sword combat was done.  Just because the weapon spends a certain amount of time being used backwards (perfectly legitimate for most large swords), doesn't mean it requires TWF.  It just means such use is included in the basic proficiency of the weapon.Lacking.  Very little of it dealt with why a ranger would be inclined to TWF any more than another class would.As I've said, I think it makes sense to give a ranger a narrow band of combat excellence.  That way, he's a scary combatant, but doesn't encroach on the fighter's schtick too much.  I just can't see any good rationale for TWF over any other style.</blockquote>

Verification