Martial Powers Ranger Multiclass Feat

[Hypersmurf]

The whole shocktrooper thing seems irrelevant since it requires paragon multiclassing, and a paragon path, and you can't have both.

Two-Blade Warrior is a multiclass feat, not paragon multiclassing.

You can certainly have a multiclass feat and a paragon path - especially since a multiclass feat can be used to satisfy a class prerequisite of a paragon path!

-Hyp.

 

[pokken]

Wow, you're right. That is absolutely brutal. Welcome to craghammer town.

It's the others that require paragon.

 

[Smeelbo]

If I understand your interpretation correctly then, the Two-Blade Fighting Style, PHB 104, while it allows your character to "wield a one-handed weapon in your off hand as if it were an off-hand weapon," does not allow you to use that same weapon with any power which references "off-hand weapons?" So for example, Twin Strike PHB 105, Ruffling Strike MP46, or Off-Hand Diversion, MP51?

If so, this is incredibly lame.
Smeelbo

 

[Kordeth]

If I understand your interpretation correctly then, the Two-Blade Fighting Style, PHB 104, while it allows your character to "wield a one-handed weapon in your off hand as if it were an off-hand weapon," does not allow you to use that same weapon with any power which references "off-hand weapons?" So for example, Twin Strike PHB 105, Ruffling Strike MP46, or Off-Hand Diversion, MP51?

If so, this is incredibly lame.
Smeelbo

No, that's not what anyone is arguing. The term "off-hand weapon," in the rules, can mean one of two things depending on context. It can mean "the weapon you are wielding in your off-hand" or it can mean "a weapon with the off-hand property." For most characters, the former case will always be a subset of the latter case, but for two-blade rangers or characters with the Two-Blade Warrior feat, they can be two separate categories.

What some people are arguing is that the phrase "as though it were an off-hand weapon" does not make any weapon in your off hand count as a weapon with the off-hand property for purposes of powers or abilities that key off of the off-hand weapon property.

 

[Smeelbo]

I apologize in advance, but is that a difference that makes a difference? Under what circumstance would an "off-hand weapon" be treated differently from a "weapon with the off-hand property?" And how would I tell the difference?

I can imagine (but haven't found yet) a magical weapon that is restricted to "off-hand" weapons only.

I do find it very lame that the intepretation in this thread suggests that you cannot use Power Attack with a versatile weapon that is being used in two hands. If the various two-weapon ranger powers that reference an "off-hand" weapon do not refer to weapons with the "off-hand" property but rather weapons that are being currently wielded in a character's off-hand, why does not that same reasoning apply to a "versatile" weapon being wielded two-handed with Power Attack?

How am I, as a player, supposed to know when a rule is refering to the manner in which the weapon is being wielded, as opposed to a property of the weapon itself?

Smeelbo

 

[Caliban]

I apologize in advance, but is that a difference that makes a difference? Under what circumstance would an "off-hand weapon" be treated differently from a "weapon with the off-hand property?" And how would I tell the difference?

I can imagine (but haven't found yet) a magical weapon that is restricted to "off-hand" weapons only.

I do find it very lame that the intepretation in this thread suggests that you cannot use Power Attack with a versatile weapon that is being used in two hands. If the various two-weapon ranger powers that reference an "off-hand" weapon do not refer to weapons with the "off-hand" property but rather weapons that are being currently wielded in a character's off-hand, why does not that same reasoning apply to a "versatile" weapon being wielded two-handed with Power Attack?

How am I, as a player, supposed to know when a rule is refering to the manner in which the weapon is being wielded, as opposed to a property of the weapon itself?

Smeelbo

For your first question:
It matters because new classes, powers, and feats are being added to the game that make specific references to the property of the weapon, rather than how it is wielded. (Tempest fighters, for example.)

For your last question:

Ask your DM. There are basically two schools of thought:

1) Only the property of the weapon matters. If the weapon is one-handed, it is a one-handed weapon at all times, even if it is versatile and able to be used with two hands.

If the weapon has the off-hand property, it is always has that property, no matter which hand is actually being used to wield it, and if it does not have the off-hand property then it is never treated as having the off-hand property even if you can wield it in your off-hand.

2) How you wield the weapon matters more than the property, and in effect can grant (or remove) that property to the weapon. So wielding a versatile weapon in two-hands makes it count as a two-handed weapon rather than a one handed weapon. Wielding a weapon in your off-hand effectively grants the weapon the off-hand property even if the ability that lets you do this doesn't specifically state it.

So far, Customer Service responses seem to be using Option 1. There is a response from one of the developers that seems to go with option 2, but that is specifically a non-official response, and may not match the current design philosophy. On the other hand, option 2 makes more sense than option 1 to a lot of people.

So ask your DM.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Wielding a weapon in your off-hand effectively grants the weapon the off-hand property even if the ability that lets you do this doesn't specifically state it.

Although this doesn't really cover my position, which is that Two-Blade Warrior or the ranger fighting style do 'specifically state it' - they don't just let you wield a weapon in your off-hand, they let you wield it in your off-hand as though it were an off-hand weapon.

To me, that's stating that the weapon gains an effective off-hand property.

If the ability said "You may wield a one-handed weapon in your off-hand", I wouldn't think the off-hand property was granted. It's the second clause that does that, by my reading.

I see a difference between "You can wield a scimitar in your off-hand" and "You can wield a scimitar as an off-hand weapon"; between "You can use a longsword in two hands" and "You can use a longsword as a two-handed weapon".

-Hyp.

 

[Caliban]

Although this doesn't really cover my position,
-Hyp.

I said that there were two basic schools of thought. I didn't go into all the variations thereof.

And your positions are anything but basic.

 

[Smeelbo]

Therefore, if I understand correctly, if there were a feat that allowed you to wield a two-handed weapon in one hand, it would still be considered a two-handed weapon for purposes of the feat Power Attack?

Smeelbo

 

[Caliban]

Therefore, if I understand correctly, if there were a feat that allowed you to wield a two-handed weapon in one hand, it would still be considered a two-handed weapon for purposes of the feat Power Attack?

Smeelbo

If you agree with option 1) then yes. If you follow option 2) then no. If you follow Hypersmurf's more nuanced reading of the rules, then it would depend on the exact text of the feat.

I tend to follow option 1, with room for exceptions based on the wording of specific feats/powers.