Ranger's Dire Wolverine Strike w/ differing weapon damage

[Syrsuro]

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.

By the RAW, that is arguably correct. But I don't think that it was in any way what the RAI were supposed to be.

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.

Except there are several other powers that use the same mechanic. If that ranger also has Sweeping Whirlwind (Enc 7), Swirling Leaves of Steel (Daily 9), Cheetah's Rake (Enc 17), and Clearing the Ground (Stormwarden Enc 11) they are now benefitting from an oversized weapon on several attacks, typically with multiplied [W]. (Note: Two other similar attacks - Wounding Whirlwind and Cold Steel Hurricane - have the requirement for two weapons and target a close burst 1, but they specify one attack with each hand on each target, and so avoid this issue. And every other power that specifies that they must have two weapons also specifies an attack with each weapon.).

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.

Obviously. But we aren't really talking about the typical ranger or what they were expecting when they wrote the rules. They were expecting paladins to be brave and stand up to their foes until they saw how people were actually playing them at D&D Experience and realized they had to change Divine Challenge. Not everyone sticks to their expectations and thus we are talking about what the rules say.

I have no doubt that, when they wrote the rules, they were thinking of rangers who had similar, if not identical, weapons in each hand. But I think that a very common approach is going to be rangers with a melee weapon in one hand and a throwable melee weapon in the other (javelin, handaxe, etc.) Heck - that's what started me down this path, I started creating a Battleaxe/handaxe ranger for GenCon and read the power and wondered how it would work. And I've seen a dozen or more other threads proposing other versions of an assymetric weapon choice for rangers. So its going to be a common occurance.

The question of improvised weapons (both rocks and unarmed) was raised to explore the RAW and show that a strict interpretation of the RAW leads to some illogic (and thus that errata, or at least clarification, was in order).

To spell it out: If the handaxe has no effect on the attack or the damage, what limitiations are there on what I can use as a weapon to fulfill the requirement? And if it doesn't matter what I use to fulfill the requirement, does this mean that the requirement is meaningless. And if it's a meaningless requirement, why is it there?

Personally - the approach I would take is given above (in brief you must make at least one attack with each weapon). It gives the requirement meaning. It fits both the presumed intent (a ranger wielding two similar weapons), as well as the likely exception (off-hand handaxes, etc) and gives a cost to the exploits (you can use a rock but at least one attack has to be made with that rock).

If you think that a Kick is a reasonable interpretation as well (I'm dubious), then they also need to errata that you cannot be wielding a weapon two-handed and benefit from the power.

Carl