Ranger TWF and Drawing Weapons

[Radiating Gnome]

I've seen this debated elsewhere, but thought I'd ask here.

Rangers get a virtual version of TWF. Does this mean that when the PHB states that characters with TWF can draw two weapons at the same time, Ranger can also draw two weapons at the same time?

The debate I've seen (on the RPGA Infinite Monkeys Yahoo group) hung a lot of weight on the way the ability is described in the Ranger class description -- the PC can "fight as if he had the TWF and Ambidexterity feats" -- and since that specifies fight, the argument goes that they only get to fight as if they had the feat, they don't get to draw weapons as if they had the feat.

Masters of the Wild does refer specifically to the ranger versions ot TWF and Ambidexterity in it's discussion of virtual feats, but what it says is that virtual feats can be used to qualify for other feats. Since it does not specify anything more than qualifying for other feats, it'll be hard to argue with literalist readings of the rules that the virtual versions of TWF should allow a character to draw two weapons at once.

To me, that cuts against the spirit of the rules and the way other virtual feats are handled. What do you think? Are there sources out there that deal with this more clearly?

-rg

 

[Cougar]

I am not sure why this would be debated. Rangers get the virtual feats, Ambidexterity and Two Weapon Fighting. Virtual feats work identical to normal feats unless.....

If they had some restrictions on those feats, like not being able to draw two weapons combined with a move equivalent action, they would be stated in their description. They do have a limitation, which is the feats can only be used in light or no armor.

 

[jontherev]

Isn't it kind of hard to fight with weapons unless you draw them first? Seems like a silly debate to me. YMMV.

 

[Henrix]

The Ranger has, for all purposes, Two-Weapon Fighting, except when wearing heavier armour than light or fighting with a double weapons.
That means he can draw two weapons as part of a MEA, under those circumstances.

I don't think it is stated more explicitly than in the places you mentioned, but I am convinced that is what is intentended.
The 'fight with two weapons as if he had Ambidexterity and Two-Weapon Fighting' sounds to me like he also draws as if he had TWF. To fight is more than making attack rolls.

 

[Cougar]

jontherev, I think he meant draw them for free as a move equivalent action or combined with a MEA.

 

[Taren Seeker]

Seems like a silly debate to me. YMMV.

You've never seen the Infinite Monkeys list.

Just a guess

Gnome, you're correct in thinking that describing the ranger's feats as virtual in MotW trumps the description in the PHB, especially since the virtual feat concept didn't exist when the PHB was printed.

 

[Radiating Gnome]

Thanks for the help-

I'm not hearing a lot of dissention here. But you're still not giving me much that will help argue against such a literal reading.

I was hoping for some reference I hadn't seen -- something that would make it more clear. Even though it seems to make a lot of sense to me (and you all, apparently) that's not going to help in a debate with a Infinite Monkeys-Trained Rules Lawyer.

Are there other sources that discuss the use of Virtual Feats -- perhaps something that clearly states that the PC can perform as if she has the feat as long as she is not disqualified, as stated in the description of the Virtual Feat (wearing medium or heavy armor, for a Ranger)?

-rg

 

[Taren Seeker]

I would say that any book that describes the virtual feat concept supports you. You are considered to have the feat, period. The only restriction is the armor.

The ranger ability is the framework of the virtual feat system. They just didn't know how to word it in the PHB. Note the awkwardness over the ranger access to imp 2 weapon. You must invoke "spirit of the rules" here.

Oh, I haven't checked out monkeys, but if the person harassing you has the initials T.B. Then just sick Caliban on him. Caliban loves breaking him down. It's pretty fun to watch actually.

Not as much fun as actually judging T.B in LG, like I have.

 

[Ysgarran]

OK, I'm officially confused here.

Are people saying that someone with two weapon fighting/ambidexterity can draw two weapons in a single Move-Equivalent Action? I've always ruled that drawing a single weapon is a MEA and that you can't execute two MEAs at the same time.

It strongly encourages those who fight with two weapons to take quick-draw.

Ysgarran.

___________________
http://www.storymania.com/cgibin/sm...tle=AirForceOnePartOne&category=novels&page=1
http://www.storymania.com/cgibin/sm2/smshowtitlebox.cgi?category=novels&page=1&title=JohnnyReb

 

[Zaruthustran]

Of course.

Instead of hunting for a ruling, just read what's written and rule based on common sense. In this case, as others have said, a ranger in light armor can in fact draw two weapons during a move action.

Here's my common sense interpretation:

1. A person with TWF and a +1 BAB can draw two weapons during a Move action.
2. While wearing light armor Rangers fight as if they have TWF.
3. A ranger has a +1 BAB.
4. A ranger in light armor can draw two weapons during a move action.

Or if you want to go by a strict reading of the rules and focus on the words "fight as if":

1. "Fight" does not merely equal "attack roll".
2. "Fight" is more closely related to "combat": "a fight" = "combat".
3. The rules for "Draw a weapon" are listed under "Combat Actions" in the PHB and SRD. "Fight Actions" = "Combat Actions"
4. The PHB states that Rangers can fight/can engage in combat as if they had TWF.
5. Rangers can perform the fight action/combat action "Draw a weapon" as if they had TWF.
6. Rangers can draw two weapons during a move action.

-z

(Edit: removed some harsh language)