pawsplay's dealbreaker list

[Kunimatyu]

The point is that frost giants are iconic; storm and cloud giants aren't. The complaint isn't about the volume of giants available.

Norse mythology does have storm giants too, last I checked. And while I'm not a fan of cloud giants personally, aren't they pretty much the Jack and the Beanstalk archetype, with the cloud castles and all that?

 

[Kwalish Kid]

That's not what I said. I said two longswords was better than one longsword. I prefer a shortsword as my second weapon, but I'll take anything over nothing at all. I spent several years working on a single sword style, and believe me, there's a lot you can do with that. I can probably take an average two weapon fighter with a single weapon most of the time. But could I take a good two-weapon fighter? Forget about it.

And can you use two longswords? I can and I have. I don't prefer it, but I know people who do.

Just out of curiosity, how many people have you killed with swords?

 

[Vempyre]

just one thing to say :

sigh

 

[pawsplay]

Just out of curiosity, how many people have you killed with swords?

None, but my homey Miyamoto Musashi will back me up on this one.

 

[heretic888]

None, but my homey Miyamoto Musashi will back me up on this one.

Pawsplay,

The nitojutsu of the Hyoho Niten Ichi Ryu is built around using a katana in one's main hand and a wakizashi in one's off hand. It is hardly the same as wielding two longswords at the same time. Furthermore, much like the so-called "Florentine" style of fencing the entire premise of the school is about using the smaller off-hand weapon for defense and parrying. It is not generally used for getting in "extra attacks".

This is all really besides the point, however. In 3E, if you had any hope at all of actually hitting a foe while two-weapon fighting, you had to have the right weapons and take the right feats to actually pull it off (pretty much like all the so-called "general" combat options in 3E). In 4E, while you seemingly are unable to attempt such attacks without taking the right options, the result is pretty much the same.

Just so I make myself clear, allow me to reiterate. Saying "you have to take X feat and use Y weapon or you take a -6 penalty to your primary weapon and a -10 penalty to your off weapon" and saying "you have to take X feat/power and use Y weapon or you cannot attempt this option" are functionally equivalent. The result of both rules is the same in gameplay.

Laterz.

 

[Nikosandros]

Just so I make myself clear, allow me to reiterate. Saying "you have to take X feat and use Y weapon or you take a -6 penalty to your primary weapon and a -10 penalty to your off weapon" and saying "you have to take X feat/power and use Y weapon or you cannot attempt this option" are functionally equivalent. The result of both rules is the same in gameplay.

It would however appear that in 4e a power is necessary to attack with two weapons. So either you belong to a class that has that power or you have to multi-class into it. It doesn't seem exactly functionally equivalent to taking a feat.

 

[Deep Blue 9000]

It would however appear that in 4e a power is necessary to attack with two weapons. So either you belong to a class that has that power or you have to multi-class into it. It doesn't seem exactly functionally equivalent to taking a feat.

But multi-classing is accomplished by taking feats. You take a feat, pick a Ranger TWF power, and you can TWF no matter what class you are.

 

[heretic888]

It would however appear that in 4e a power is necessary to attack with two weapons. So either you belong to a class that has that power or you have to multi-class into it. It doesn't seem exactly functionally equivalent to taking a feat.

Hi Nikosandros,

This is true. However, it brings up an another point.

Of the characters that actually used TWF in 3E, how many had more than one level in Ranger, Rogue, or Swashbuckler?? You could attempt it with a Fighter or Barbarian, but you'd have to keep your Dexterity reasonably high throughout your career, which means your attack power and/or your durability will suffer as a result.

The amount of feat investment needed to stay competitive with TWF was also costly, especially if you didn't have a source of bonus damage like sneak attack or insightful strike to offset a lack of accuracy. A Barbarian or Paladin putting all his feats in TWF would pretty much be incapable of developing options for anything else.

To me, having a faux "general" option that is only successfully used by 1 or 2 classes +90% of the time and having that same option limited to those classes is pretty much the same thing.

Laterz.

 

[Nikosandros]

But multi-classing is accomplished by taking feats. You take a feat, pick a Ranger TWF power, and you can TWF no matter what class you are.

Yes, but you first you have to take Warrior of the Wild, which you might not want and which precludes multi-classing into another class. For instance, you might want to build a fighter with some rogue powers who is able to TWF.

Lastly, if TWF is an at will power, you can't get it.

 

[Nikosandros]

This is true. However, it brings up an another point. [...]

Yes, your point is valid.

I still think that it would have been nice to provide some greater flexibility for TWF in 4E, even if this flexibility wasn't really present in previous editions.