Martial Powers Ranger Multiclass Feat

[Chainsaw]

Quick question. I don't have the books in front of me, but was wondering about something. Isn't there a multiclass ranger feat that allows regular weapons to be treated as off-hand weapons? If so and if taken by a tempest fighter, can the tempest fighter then get the off-hand benefits when wielding regular weapons?

 

[Kordeth]

No. The feat allows you to use one-handed weapons that do not have the off-hand property in your off hand, it does not allow you to treat one-handed weapons as though they have the off-hand property.

 

[Chainsaw]

Awesome, thanks. I was almost sure the two didn't complement each other, but I didn't have the text. Thanks Kordeth.

 

[Hypersmurf]

What about the Shock Trooper Paragon Path feature?
Deadly Soldier (11th level): When you wield an off-hand weapon, increase the weapon's damage die by one size.

Or the Shocking Skewer power?
Requirement: You must be wielding an off-hand weapon and have a hand free.

With Two-Blade Warrior, "You can wield a one-handed weapon in your off hand as though it were an off-hand weapon."

The Shock Trooper wields an off-hand weapon with an increased damage die. When he wields a one-handed weapon in his off hand, he wields it as though it were an off-hand weapon. If it doesn't increase in die size, he's not wielding it as though it were an off-hand weapon, is he?

-Hyp.

 

[Starglim]

I believe the interpretation others, specifically Kordeth, are taking here is "You can wield a one-handed weapon as though it were an off-hand weapon to the extent that you can wield it in your off hand".

 

[Hypersmurf]

I believe the interpretation others, specifically Kordeth, are taking here is "You can wield a one-handed weapon as though it were an off-hand weapon to the extent that you can wield it in your off hand".

Yeah, there are two ways to read the sentence.

1. "You have permission to wield a one-handed weapon in your off-hand. This permission is granted as if the one-handed weapon were, in fact, an off-hand weapon."

2. "When you have a one-handed weapon in your off hand, you wield it such a way that it is considered an off-hand weapon."

-Hyp.

 

[Caliban]

But, if you don't somehow grant the weapon the "off-hand" keyword, it still doesn't trigger things that rely on that keyword.

Being able to wield a weapon in your off-hand weapon doesn't necessarily make it an off-hand weapon.

The two-bladed warrior feat looks like it simply allows you to bypass the requirement that a weapon in your off-hand have the off-hand keyword.

 

[Hypersmurf]

The two-bladed warrior feat looks like it simply allows you to bypass the requirement that a weapon in your off-hand have the off-hand keyword.

It doesn't simply allow you to wield a one-handed weapon in your off hand; it allows you to wield a one-handed weapon in your off hand as though it were an off-hand weapon.

An "off-hand weapon" is "a weapon with the off-hand keyword", so the feat grants me the ability to wield a one-handed weapon in my off hand as though it had the off-hand keyword.

If a weapon with the off-hand keyword is a weapon that can trigger Power X, then the feat grants me the ability to wield a one-handed weapon in my off hand as though it were a weapon that can trigger Power X.

If I'm wielding a weapon as though it were a weapon that can trigger Power X, then can't I trigger Power X?

-Hyp.

 

[Caliban]

It doesn't simply allow you to wield a one-handed weapon in your off hand; it allows you to wield a one-handed weapon in your off hand as though it were an off-hand weapon.

An "off-hand weapon" is "a weapon with the off-hand keyword", so the feat grants me the ability to wield a one-handed weapon in my off hand as though it had the off-hand keyword.

That's not what it says though. If it did actually say that, I would probably agree with you.

If a weapon with the off-hand keyword is a weapon that can trigger Power X, then the feat grants me the ability to wield a one-handed weapon in my off hand as though it were a weapon that can trigger Power X.

Only if you choose to ignore the first sentence that you quoted. "You have permission to wield a one-handed weapon in your off-hand. " That is specifically what the feat is for. If they wanted it to be used for all the things an off-hand weapon can be used for, then it would actually grant the weapon the off-hand keyword.

If I'm wielding a weapon as though it were a weapon that can trigger Power X, then can't I trigger Power X?

-Hyp.

Sometimes, but not in this case. Being able to treat a weapon as if it were something for a specific purpose, does not automatically open it up to all uses of that something.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Only if you choose to ignore the first sentence that you quoted. "You have permission to wield a one-handed weapon in your off-hand. " That is specifically what the feat is for.

That wasn't a quote.

The quote is "You can wield a one-handed weapon in your off hand as though it were an off-hand weapon."

The permission line was one of the two ways that the quoted sentence could be read. I agree that if you read the sentence that way, the weapon is not considered an off-hand weapon for any other purpose. But it's not the only way the sentence can be read... nor, in my opinion, is it the most natural way to read it.

Honestly, I think a better way to write it, if you're trying to convey permission, is "You can wield a one-handed weapon in your off hand."

I think the most natural reading of "You can wield a one-handed weapon in your off hand as though it were an off-hand weapon" is "When you wield a one-handed weapon in your off hand, it is treated as an off-hand weapon".

-Hyp.