Indeed.Storm-Bringer said:The relevance of your schtick is directly proportional to your postcount
HAW HAW
Indeed.Storm-Bringer said:The relevance of your schtick is directly proportional to your postcount
HAW HAW
pawsplay said:At what, -10 to hit or something? And it was impossible in Basic D&D, and probably OD&D as well.
Very similar rules also exist for two weapon combat in Basic D&D. I think they're in the Master's Set and the Rules Cyclopedia.Nikosandros said:Nope. -4 to hit with the secondary weapon and -2 to hit with the primary one. The reaction adjustment from dexterity reduces this penalty.
Yes, the rule is found on page 19 of the Master book and page 110 of the RC. The secondary attack is at -4 and there is no penalty on the primary attack. Dexterity does not reduce the penalty.WheresMyD20 said:Very similar rules also exist for two weapon combat in Basic D&D. I think they're in the Master's Set and the Rules Cyclopedia.
pawsplay said:Wouldn't making wizards half-decent with a crossbow accomplish the same thing?
Baen said:A pure samurai would likely be a fighter, however Musashi would likely be a ranger, especially given how he was not so much a Samurai lord as he was a wandering Ronin.
I just wonder what you would do in place?
Not really, since it doesn't fit the image of any wizard I have ever heard of. I don't think I have ever read a fantasy novel where the wizard went, oops, no more spells for the day.
I have heard them being knocked out from exhaustion maybe, but never pull out a crossbow.
Not really wanting to quote anymore, the deal is that twf will be in 4e, and will likely be a nice advantage considering it is one of the main class features of the Ranger, a heavy damage dealer. As previously mentioned, take away the name ranger and their mechanics can be interpreted in multiple ways for several character concepts. TWF is in no way shape or form gone from 4e.
Moon-Lancer said:When I read your first post that talked about experience, I had a hunch it was about boffer combat. twf is easer done with lighter weapons (although i still manage to suck at it somehow). I dont have the knowledge or experience to debate if twf was historically true or not, but i do know some maneuvers with boffer combat do not apply to real fighting due to the nature of how light boffer weapons are, and how blade orientation is almost never considered (in the group i attend at least)
Nikosandros said:Yes, the rule is found on page 19 of the Master book and page 110 of the RC. The secondary attack is at -4 and there is no penalty on the primary attack. Dexterity does not reduce the penalty.
Why a fighter though? You seem very caught up on the names of the classes. I would consider Aragorn a Fighter by the D&D definition as well. Musashi did far more wandering and training then other samurai of his era, maybe not a natural woodsman but spent far more time then others of the warrior caste outside of cities. Even thematically he fits the ranger best. Besides, no one introduces their character in D&D by a Class1/Class2/Class3. The classes themselves are not the roleplay definition of the character. They are simply the definition for their skills and how they work in combat. The class system in 4e is more about the mechanics then the true fluff involved. It has always been that way really. The goal is always to take a character concept in mind and turn that into something to play at the game table. In most respects 4e seems to have the potential to be far better about that then in 3rd edition.pawsplay said:See, that's the place where I draw the line. If Musashi is not a fighter, nobody is.
Same as everyone else then. My question is this then, how many rounds does it take for one of your pcs to kill a single opponent four levels below them? An how much of a threat are those characters to your pcs? The new minion rules give them the potential to do level appropriate damage while still dying easy, a threat if mobbed by them since they can actually hit, but one easily dealt with. However the hookup over the minions is rather pointless. You can still do the same thing you are doing now. Actually it is far easier to delevel foes in this edition, so you can even mix a group of orcs with far lower level versions to fill things up.pawsplay said:Probably the same thing I've been doing... using lots of humanoid opponents about four or five levels below the PCs as filler. Around 8th or 9th level, I stop using hordes of orcs and other humanoids as significant opponents, because they aren't enough orcs in the world of that level to challenge heroes of that calibre.
The deal is that the books that the vancian system is based off of are the ONLY example of such a system. Even in this case they don't rely on crossbows. Making them better at the sword would only invalidate the fighter. So what then would you suggest?pawsplay said:Perhaps you ought to check out the books of a guy named Jack Vance. He's pretty good. In those stories, "I have the Excellent Prismatic Spray," is a threat meaning I have one (1) prepared spell that will kill you dead. Most magicians struggle to pepare more than a handful of spells, and magicians generally go armed with rapiers.
True, however Gandalf was at lowest level 17 fighting level 2 orcs. I would personally put him in the epic tier. The Mouser was a multiclass rogue/wizard and therefore doesn't apply. Even when a wizard does get in combat in fantasy, they are in some way enhanced by their magic. Do you really think Gandalf could fight that well hand to hand as old as he was? He wasn't neglecting magic for the sake of hand to hand, he was using magic efficiently to boost his own capabilities at hand to hand. A while back they were talking about the wizard having some melee powers, attacks enhanced by their magic.That's mainly because of D&D's punitive view of weapon proficiency for wizards. Gandalf did just fine with a longsword, and the Grey Mouser was handy with rapier, staff, and dagger.
Baen said:Why a fighter though?