Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Dual-Wielding and The Ranger, Part 2: On the Unappreciated Genius of Zeb
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="AbdulAlhazred" data-source="post: 8260976" data-attributes="member: 82106"><p>Right, that is all I'm saying. I agree that the most natural reading is "2 attacks per round", but that unfortunately runs afoul of a bunch of rules, fighters multiple attacks (including the "sub 1 hit die lawnmore effect". Does my 5th level fighter get TEN attacks/round against goblins?!?!? Beyond that, the rules for how many attacks you get are actually A LOT MESSIER than "one per round", because there is Weapon Speed Factor. While it only rears its ugly head when there is a tie on initiative (or maybe a few other corner cases) you would still want to consider it (again, do you double your number of attacks, how do the different speed factors of each weapon actually relate to that). The DMG's rule is thus VERY VERY incomplete, and thus ambiguous.</p><p></p><p>Drow are monsters. There are no end of examples of monsters who make attacks that don't correspond exactly to their numbers of arms, legs, weapons, etc. (though I agree that many of them DO correspond). Beyond that FIGHTERS are a blazingly obvious huge exception in and of themselves, so its impossible to say that there is some kind of "one attack per weapon/limb rule." So, I agree with you, again, except that even a high level drow fighter doesn't really clarify it for sure.</p><p></p><p>Well, it is pretty natural to interpret it as "multiple attacks with your (primary) weapon is a class feature" and then go on to rule that you get that many attacks, and then an extra one for your off-hand weapon. It isn't THAT unnatural. You could even interpret the rules that you get your normal number of attacks, but some of them are off-handed (for all PCs) although that would pretty much negate any advantages of the style.</p><p></p><p>Well, since 2e thoroughly addressed this, for at least the mainline case if not all the corner cases, I think the 3e rule is its own creature myself, but at least 3e is very clear, unlike AD&D, which is never ever clear about much of anything...</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="AbdulAlhazred, post: 8260976, member: 82106"] Right, that is all I'm saying. I agree that the most natural reading is "2 attacks per round", but that unfortunately runs afoul of a bunch of rules, fighters multiple attacks (including the "sub 1 hit die lawnmore effect". Does my 5th level fighter get TEN attacks/round against goblins?!?!? Beyond that, the rules for how many attacks you get are actually A LOT MESSIER than "one per round", because there is Weapon Speed Factor. While it only rears its ugly head when there is a tie on initiative (or maybe a few other corner cases) you would still want to consider it (again, do you double your number of attacks, how do the different speed factors of each weapon actually relate to that). The DMG's rule is thus VERY VERY incomplete, and thus ambiguous. Drow are monsters. There are no end of examples of monsters who make attacks that don't correspond exactly to their numbers of arms, legs, weapons, etc. (though I agree that many of them DO correspond). Beyond that FIGHTERS are a blazingly obvious huge exception in and of themselves, so its impossible to say that there is some kind of "one attack per weapon/limb rule." So, I agree with you, again, except that even a high level drow fighter doesn't really clarify it for sure. Well, it is pretty natural to interpret it as "multiple attacks with your (primary) weapon is a class feature" and then go on to rule that you get that many attacks, and then an extra one for your off-hand weapon. It isn't THAT unnatural. You could even interpret the rules that you get your normal number of attacks, but some of them are off-handed (for all PCs) although that would pretty much negate any advantages of the style. Well, since 2e thoroughly addressed this, for at least the mainline case if not all the corner cases, I think the 3e rule is its own creature myself, but at least 3e is very clear, unlike AD&D, which is never ever clear about much of anything... [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Dual-Wielding and The Ranger, Part 2: On the Unappreciated Genius of Zeb
Top