Ranger's Dire Wolverine Strike w/ differing weapon damage

[Syrsuro]

I'd say no to the bow; the PHB is quite clear: "You can't use a ranged weapon as a melee weapon."

Similarly to the shield: "However, you can't use your shield hand to make attacks." I don't think I'd consider the shield to be a weapon, if it can't be used to make attacks.

Fist, I don't have an issue with. But I'd be disinclined to allow someone to point out that it refers to kicking as an improvised weapon as well, and call their greatsword-and-kick an answer to "You must be wielding two melee weapons".

-Hyp.

The counter-argument is, of course, the line: "Improvised weapons include anything you happen to pick up, from a rock to a chair."


OK, so the rules provide a little guidance.
Ranged weapon are specifically excluded, so no whacking critters over the head with a bow (although stabbing with arrows a la Legolas may still be possible), and possibly no shield bashing, at least not with a properly mounted shield (although this one I am less sure of, since shield bashing has been around as a concept for a long time and was an explicit part of the last version.)

Wait a sec....

Ah ha! Shields don't work because they weigh either 6# (light) or 15# (heavy) and the maximum weight for a one-handed improvised weapon is 5#. 6# improvised weapons are two-handed. So you can grab a shield off of a table and whack someone with it, but you have to use two hands.

But rocks and chair legs are still legal - as is a piece of wood the same size and shape as a bow, just so long as its not actually a bow (??). And, by a strict RAW unarmed is listed under "Improvised Melee Weapons", so that may still be allowed - it works for Opportunity Attacks, after all.

(Personally, I think I would have allowed (and may still allow) them to use a bow for an improvised attack, but the attack would break the bow as it's not meant for such abuse. But that, of course, could have repercussions as seen here.)

Carl

 

[King-Panda]

This is a perfect example of RAW vs. common sense. It seems the only purpose the "Must be wielding two weapons" serves is to limit players from using 2H weapons, but there is no need to further limit then in how they use their (1H or OH) weapons. I would (and will) house rule that the "multiple attack rolls/one damage roll" rule would not apply in the situation of a dual-wielding character attacking multiple people with a keyword "Weapon" power. And I am sure as h*ll not going to enforce the similar multiple thrown weapon damage instance talked about a few posts up. If you throw different types of thrown weapons in an attack against multiple targets, you should roll damage for each type of damage die. It makes zero sense to do otherwise.

(Irrelevant to the topic at hand) Now that I think about it, I don't see the "one damage roll" rule existing for any purpose other than to speed up gameplay. I think I am going to get rid of it completely.

 

[jaelis]

There's a third possibility: 1[W] is based on the damage die of the weapon you use to satisfy the "wielding a light thrown weapon" requirement - that is, the first one you throw. Even if the other weapons you throw have a different damage die, it's irrelevant, since the power uses a single damage roll.

You're right, that is a third possibility. But the text on pg 271 says

... if you're using thrown weapons, you need one for each target.

which indicates that each target is attacked with a separate weapon. Then on pg 276, it says

If you're using a weapon for the attack, the damage is some multiple of your weapon damage dice.

which would seem to preclude using one weapon's dice when attacking with another weapon.

It's an exception-based design, of course, so it possible that those general rules don't apply to this particular situation. But I'm not sure if your solution is really more satisfactory than using separate damage rolls for each weapon type (which would be a different exception).

Edit: From a broader perspective, I think using separate damage rolls fits better with the driving philosophy of "saying yes to the players" that the DMG advocates.

 

[Hypersmurf]

... which would seem to preclude using one weapon's dice when attacking with another weapon.

It depends what "using a weapon for the attack" means. If it means "Using a weapon as an accessory to satisfy the Weapon keyword of the power", then the weapon in question could be the dagger you were wielding at the start of the sequence, no matter how many shuriken you throw later, without violating that line.

-Hyp.

 

[Syrsuro]

It depends what "using a weapon for the attack" means. If it means "Using a weapon as an accessory to satisfy the Weapon keyword of the power", then the weapon in question could be the dagger you were wielding at the start of the sequence, no matter how many shuriken you throw later, without violating that line.

-Hyp.

By that same logic, one could use the melee weapon in one hand for the attack and the melee weapon in the other hand for the damage in a Dire Wolverine Strike. Would you allow that as well?

Carl

 

[jaelis]

That view opens several other questions as well...
- Do you have to actually throw the dagger at all, or could you just use the dagger for your attack and damage rolls but throw only shuriken?
- If so, could you use a rapier for your rolls and throw shurikens?
- Shuriken are expensive, could you throw rocks instead? (They aren't light blades, but the weapon you are using to satisfy the [Weapon] keyword is.)
- If you do throw rocks, could you score sneak attack damage with them?

 

[Syrsuro]

So, with all of the above in mind - what do I think the rule ought to be in order to keep the intent of the powers (as I think they really meant it?)...

I think the following should be added to the errata:

Under "Close Attack"
"When making a close or area attack with the weapon keyword, the value of [W] for each target is dependant upon the weapon used in the attack roll on that target. If more than one type of weapon is used in the attack, separate damage rolls should be made for each type of weapon." [optionally, separate damage rolls for each target.]

Under "Ranger Two-Blade Fighting Style"
"If you make multiple melee attacks using a power which has a requirement that you be wielding two melee weapons, each weapon must be used in at least one attack."

(Note - those that make exactly two attacks, such as twin strike or Sudden Strike) already meet this requirement.

Carl

 

[Crazydwarf]

I came across this question the other day:

Dire Wolverine Strike (Ranger Level 1 Encounter) targets each enemy in a close burst 1, and does 1[W]+Strength modifier damage to each one hit (Str. vs. AC), and (more importantly) it requires the ranger to be wielding two melee weapons.

My question is: Which hand's weapon is used for the [W]?

In other words, if he is holding a battleaxe in his main hand and a handaxe in his off hand, which one is used for the attack?

1) If all attacks are made with the main hand, what is the point of the weapon in the off hand (and in that case could he just grab a chair leg for an improvised weapon or even call his fist the second weapon)? How does the other weapon figure into the calculation?

2) Can he split the attacks up? Could he, for example, use the battleaxe against one target and use the handaxe against a different target? (Don't ask why he would want to, I can always find a reason - especially if one or the other is enchanted. The question is, could he?).

Carl

1) It might be possible that the point of the weapon in the off hand is to deny 2 handed weapons. But doesnt the off hand weapon add +1 damage to the main hand weapon just by being held ? (not exactly, fluffwise its being activly used I suppose) so that it's acctually 1[W] + 1 + STR mod.
I may be misremembering though.

I would also allow improvised weapons.
Even shields and bows I'd houserule as improvised weapons, same as if the PC had used a free action to drop the shield/bow and punched with his fist (thus they would have to spend time to correct or reposition the shield/bow afterwards same as if it was lying on the ground if they want the defence/shootability back)

A bow would likely break or atleast loose accuracy by being handled in this way, but meh..I'd rather have my players feeling good about their "heroes" and allow "Legolas arrow stabbing" or "Scorpion king snag and release-into-face" moves with bows without punishment.

Heck I'd even be tempted to give a PC +1 damage as versatile weapon held two-handed if they where to bash their opponents with the stock of their crossbow, just to reward fluffing their combat rather than try and "outrule" the DM to gain some slim advantage.

2) My wager is: No he cannot split them up, but that he could choose one weapon or the other.
And if it is the case that an additional weapon = +1 damage I'd guess the "main" hand weapon would provide this bonus to it's "off" hand counterpart aswell.

Sorry if this post is too houserule heavy

 

[Mengu]

I'm not entirely sure how you guys managed to follow some logic to conclude improvised weapons can be used as a second weapon, but a two handed weapon can't be used for Dire Wolverine Strike. Kicks and Headbutts are also considered improvised weapons, and they don't require a free hand. So there is nothing to stop you from saying your kick is your second weapon, and to swing away with a two-handed weapon.

I think the intent behind improvised weapons, is to use them when lacking other alternatives, or for the fun of it.

For instance the halfling warlock with only a rod in his hand could take an opportunity attack to stick his foot in front of a goblin trying to run by him. Or an elf ranger cornered at the end of an alley with his bow in hand may decide to Twin Strike his aggressor with a leap and a double kick in the chest.

The intent clearly is not to provide an unfair advantage via use of an improvised weapon. Of course I can't really think of an unfair advantage it might regularly grant... It would be rather silly for a Ranger to carry around a greataxe just so once per encounter he can use it with Dire Wolvering Strike. The intent for all the powers that say you must be wielding two melee weapons, is probably to wield two actual weapons. I might make the odd exception (as the example above), but primarily, I'd expect the ranger to use two weapons.

 

[Crazydwarf]

I'm not entirely sure how you guys managed to follow some logic to conclude improvised weapons can be used as a second weapon.

I thought it was quite simple.
1) Rangers secondary weapon doesnt need the "off-hand" tag
2) Improvised weapons don't have the "off-hand" tag

but a two handed weapon can't be used for Dire Wolverine Strike.

That I can agree with.

Kicks and Headbutts are also considered improvised weapons, and they don't require a free hand. So there is nothing to stop you from saying your kick is your second weapon, and to swing away with a two-handed weapon.

Very iffy here I agree, however I'd say that while they wouldnt require a free hand, they would require that a shield or 2hander is NOT currently in use (but may still be "held" in the hands).

Kicking or headbutting would cause you to loose momentum and power with the 2hander rendering it useless until momentum can be regained in your next turn, likewise shields must be moved out of the way and you would loose what defensive bonuses they yeild for the turn.

Likewise if you are swinging that axe around, you are incorrectly balanced to have any effective accuracy and power with a headbutt, and youre not likely to kick anyone very hard when your shield is in the way either.
(Some powers are exception to this, such as "spinning sweep" or "all bets are off" for example, wich are specifically designed to work regardless of wielded weapons)

But both of those are fighter powers, and I'd recommend the player to rethink his class choice of ranger if thats what he wants, or atleast try and multiclass to fighter. Since doing nifty stuff with big 2handers is in the realm of fighters, while waving two weapons is more ranger:ish.

I think the intent behind improvised weapons, is to use them when lacking other alternatives, or for the fun of it.

The intent clearly is not to provide an unfair advantage via use of an improvised weapon. Of course I can't really think of an unfair advantage it might regularly grant... It would be rather silly for a Ranger to carry around a greataxe just so once per encounter he can use it with Dire Wolvering Strike. The intent for all the powers that say you must be wielding two melee weapons, is probably to wield two actual weapons. I might make the odd exception (as the example above), but primarily, I'd expect the ranger to use two weapons.

Exactly what I think aswell, aslong as the numbers add up the same and provide no unintended advantage, it's fair play by me.

If someone for some reason would like to headbutt and bash an opponent with the shaft of his greataxe, as if he was dual wielding improvised weapons...Sure, excellent even !
I'd even allow it with the power in question here, but [W] would originate from an improvised weapon, not the greataxe D12.
There is NO advantage I can think of other than "cool factor" or something.
Infact it would make the attacks worse right ?

I think we both agree on the intent of the power, and again the intent of classes.
Fighters are good with 2handers but bad at dual wielding, and turnabouts for rangers, atleast afaik.