Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Syrsuro" data-source="post: 4417933" data-attributes="member: 58162">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. 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.). 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</blockquote>

Verification