TWF and you

[muffin_of_chaos]

This is just a thread contemplating the supposed availability of two-weapon fighting. Given that Rangers are the only class we expect will have powers relating to fighting with a weapon in each hand (this might be an error, let me know), the question is why?

While I think that there will be feats devoted to letting anyone be capable of two-weapon fighting, we can assume that only Rangers can, and are left feeling kind of like we're being pigeonholed into the furry-animal-loving-woodsman class if we want to dual wield effectively. I don't wanna be a lumberjack!

But like the Warlord class, I expect that the name of the class "Ranger" is sort of a misnomer, determined by tradition if nothing else

We've seen no indication that Rangers have anything to do with Nature other than their skill list (which might be accounted for by the fact that some Rangers will actually stick to the old Ranger stereotype, even if they don't need to).

They are a Martial class, after all, neither Primal nor Divine.

It would seem that Rangers as Strikers fill two Striker combat roles--ranged or melee. (Note that this is different from the Rogue, which is ranged* And melee*, the star indicating that they specialize in opportunism instead of straight combat.)

If the Ranger decides they want to be a meleer, that's their whole purpose for being a Ranger, and they have the time and will to cultivate a potentially deadlier two-weapon fighting style. Meanwhile, Fighters don't, Warlords don't, Clerics don't, and Paladins don't, all of them focusing on training the powers associated with their Role (none of which would be benefited with an extra weapon).

Rogues wouldn't bother focusing on learning how to fight with two weapons because they are more concerned with getting in that one carefully-placed backstab than actually dueling face-to-face.

In other words, forget everything you preconceived about what the Ranger class is. They are now Strikers. Melee Rangers are not merely rangers who melee, but any and all persons who want to do straight, non-sneaky damage in a melee situation. Thus they have have the capability to fight with two weapons unlike every other class/Role.

Thus, in 4E Drizzt was always a Ranger, he just wasn't a ranger until later. (Note the lack of capitalization.) Ninjas will probably best be covered by a new class later, but until then they might best be designed as Rangers, perhaps with a couple Rogue multiclassing feats to get in the important backstab.

That's my theory anyway, maybe it doesn't need to be said but thought I'd throw it out there.

 

[Mort_Q]

My take on this is that, given the new power(s) structure, to properly incorporate all the cool TWF things, you need to have them logically laid out in a class.

I will reserve all final judgments until I actually see how flexible the system is.

I mean, I don't care what the class is called, I care about what the PC can do.

 

[hennebeck]

I agree completely.
If I want to be a TWF fighter who deals lots of damage, I'm a Ranger.
If I'm a bow-eeilding forest runner, I'm a Ranger.
If I'm a fighter who stands and takes it, and some times whips out 2 long swords, I'm a Fighter w/ a multi-class feat.
If I want to be like Drizzt, I'm a Ranger.

 

[RandomCitizenX]

I would be really surprised if the fighter did not also have some TWF related powers. Not as many as the ranger, but it seems like it should be a viable option.

 

[drjones]

This is just a thread contemplating the supposed availability of two-weapon fighting. Given that Rangers are the only class we expect will have powers relating to fighting with a weapon in each hand (this might be an error, let me know), the question is why?

Because you have looked through a keyhole and have seen a television but have not seen a remote control so you assume you are stuck watching only one channel in that room. Open the door and we will talk.

 

[Mercule]

I expect you're correct. And, really, that saddens me. I don't see any correlation between rangers and TWF. If anything, rangers are going to excel at single-weapon, no shield style, IMO.

I've always figured the ranger filled one of three archetypes (broadly speaking): 1) the dude you don't want to fight when terrain is an issue, 2) the dude you don't want to have hunting you down to serve up cold vengeance, 3) the dude you don't leave for dead in the tundra/desert/insert inhospitable terrain. Include in #3 the ability to just. keep. going after taking massive amounts of damage.

With the new combat role focus, I can accept the ranger losing his "tough as nails" schtick (yes, I was peeved for the duration of 3.5). I was really hoping 4e would kill the asinine ranger/TWF relationship. Instead, I think we're getting a swashbuckler/archer hybrid that has tracking. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for a swashbuckler base class. I just don't want it to come at the expense of the tough, smart, survivalist who likes to skewer orcs.

 

[ProfessorCirno]

If I want to be like Drizzt, I'm a Ranger.

Herein lies the problem though. Drizzt effectively ruined rangers through the new emphasis on dual wielding, which I think shouldn't have had anything to do with being a ranger. I'm going to agree with the poster above me - rangers should be single weapon style, not "TWO SCIMATARS OF FURY!"

Dual wielding should not automatically equate to ranger. If anything, it should equate to fighter. Gee, a class dedicated to mastering the martial arts. I know, let's not give them dual wielding. Instead, we'll give it to the backwards hicks.

Quite frankly, Mercule said it best. Rangers are supposed to be the tough as nails, survivalist type. Instead, they're now Slightly More Powerful Rogues, Who Have Tracking.

 

[Kaffis]

I'm expecting the Ranger in 4e to be either entirely devoid of tree-hugging fluff in the power mechanics, or to have a plethora of power fluff variety, enough that a character can choose to eschew the woodsy stuff entirely and still not feel like he's completely boxed into X powers.

The option to get *either* dungeoneering *or* nature as a bonus skill class feature lends weight here.

In addition, I expect the class's descriptive fluff to do exactly what you're suggesting, describing the Ranger as a striker first, who trains carefully and plans his attacks more than the opportunistic, fly-by-the-seat-of-his-pants, live-by-the-moment rogue. Thus, Rangers are *frequently* found as patient hunters, sly ambushing woodsmen, or resourceful dungeoneers, all of whom are thoughtful, insightful, and train vigorously to hone their art, be it marksmanship or deft bladework.

So, yes. I expect a TWF Ranger's concept to be fairly flexible, and if any of the powers themselves suggest the woodsmanship, I actually would be surprised if it weren't only to be found in skills that really lend themselves to the archery side, just as the Warlord gets two distinct feels based on the tactical Warlord or the inspirational Warlord (due to being driven off of different stats!). Naturey stuff will probably continue to be wisdom driven (promoting a dex/wis build), whereas I wouldn't be surprised to see the more dungeoneering elements and the TWF stuff promote a str/int build. Str/int would cover the agile fighting archetype that TWF suggests (just as it did for Swashbucklers in 3.x) now that Int is a valid AC/reflex stat, while strength gives capable melee performance without forcing the character into finesse (if finesse will even be a build option, rather than simply a weapon property... I could see light blades using finesse stats by default).

 

[HP Dreadnought]

I liked it better when you played a ranger because you got 2 hit dice, and therefore DOUBLE your Con bonus at 1st level!

Be that as it may, for whatever reason Rangers are now the designated 2Wfers of D&D. I expect that will be reflected in the 4E ranger class.

Later we will see a separate ninja class, probably a separate archer class, etc. Where 3.x had each class with a plethora of options/builds. . . 4E will tend to promote a new class for a very narrow selection of builds. I'm not necessarily opposed to that approach. It will certainly help cut down on the class overlap issues of 3.x. . . but it is a different approach to be sure.

 

[ruleslawyer]

Can someone point out where in the previews it says that the ranger gets TWF?

Personally, I'd prefer that this was a feat. I know that feats aren't supposed to really be damage-additive... but I don't think TWF should be damage-additive. It should be a style thing.

 

[Mal Malenkirk]

Can someone point out where in the previews it says that the ranger gets TWF?

Personally, I'd prefer that this was a feat. I know that feats aren't supposed to really be damage-additive... but I don't think TWF should be damage-additive. It should be a style thing.

Check out the Stormwarden paragon path.

How much TWF goodness comes from the ranger class itself isn't clear, though. But the Warden is using TWF powers so you'd expect that most TWF fighting is conducted through powers. A second attack through a feat is out of whack compared to other feats we've seen.

 

[Mort_Q]

I get the impression that if they didn't use the name Ranger, people wouldn't be as concerned. Perhaps I'm wrong.

If they did this, would that be better?

Martial Variant A - Heavy Armour proficiency, Sword and Board, Power List A
Martial Variant B - Light Armour proficiency, Two-Handed Weapons, Power List B
Martial Variant C - Light Armour proficiency, Ranged Weapons, Power List C
Martial Variant D - Light Armour proficiency, Two Weapon Fighting, Power List D

 

[ProfessorCirno]

I get the impression that if they didn't use the name Ranger, people wouldn't be as concerned. Perhaps I'm wrong.

No, I think you're correct, actually.

One of the problems with "ranger" is how far it's gone from being an actual ranger. Instead of the backwoods survivalist guy who knows the area like the back of his hand, he became some dancing fighter who used two weapons. I think that's one of the two issues a lot of people have: TWF just doesn't feel ranger-like, at least not to the model people have when they think "ranger."

The other issue is "Wait, so my martial class that has heavy emphasis on understanding and perfecting the use of weapons...can't quite figure out that he has a left hand?"

 

[Jim DelRosso]

It's almost pure speculation, but I'd be surprised if rogues don't get some dual-wielding powers. (Note, the only thing that prevents this from being pure speculation is the sweet picture in R&C of two rogues, both of whom were dual-wielding. That's admittedly thin, but it's a great picture. )

It's also worth noting that the only aspect of 4e TWF that requires powers is striking with both weapons in a single round. I'm curious to test the viability of a fighter who uses, say, a hammer in one hand and an axe in the other, so as to gain access to both hammer-only and axe-only fighter powers. Some kind of two-weapon defense feat would help, but such a thing hasn't been ruled out as of yet.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

It's almost pure speculation, but I'd be surprised if rogues don't get some dual-wielding powers. (Note, the only thing that prevents this from being pure speculation is the sweet picture in R&C of two rogues, both of whom were dual-wielding. That's admittedly thin, but it's a great picture. )

Possible, but unlikely. You can only sneak attack once per round. (However, there might be some feat or power that lets you break this restriction. TWF might be possible for a rogue, and even useful, but it'll probably be expensive.)

 

[Jim DelRosso]

Possible, but unlikely. You can only sneak attack once per round. (However, there might be some feat or power that lets you break this restriction. TWF might be possible for a rogue, and even useful, but it'll probably be expensive.)

Hm. You may be right, but I don't think not being able to SA more than once in a round necessarily means that rogues won't get "strike with two weapons" powers. Arguably, that restriction could have been put in to keep dual-wielding rogues from completely out-pacing single-weapon rogues in the damage department. (Please note, this statement is more speculation. )

 

[Mort_Q]

TWF just doesn't feel ranger-like, at least not to the model people have when they think "ranger."

This why they should have dumped classes altogether. Roles and Powers is all you would need in theory. What your character's background is, how they choose to fight, all that stuff, is a question of how you play (and roleplay) the character.

The only reason I can see for not dumping classes in favour of roles is balancing mechanics, and even then, I'm not sure I'm convinced.

 

[ruleslawyer]

No, I think you're correct, actually.

One of the problems with "ranger" is how far it's gone from being an actual ranger. Instead of the backwoods survivalist guy who knows the area like the back of his hand, he became some dancing fighter who used two weapons. I think that's one of the two issues a lot of people have: TWF just doesn't feel ranger-like, at least not to the model people have when they think "ranger."

Yeah, I agree with this. Making the ranger a bowman is a step in the right direction for this, but I'm hoping he'll get camouflage/hide in plain sight/evasion/etc.

The other issue is "Wait, so my martial class that has heavy emphasis on understanding and perfecting the use of weapons...can't quite figure out that he has a left hand?"

Oddly, I'm not so bothered by this. TWF is a cool fighting style, but I can see the logic behind making it somewhat suboptimal as the default "defender" fighting style. I'd rather see more love for polearms or sword and board for the fighter, with TWF being reserved for a swashbuckler class (for which the rogue would seem best to fit the bill in 4e).

 

[ProfessorCirno]

This why I they should have dumped classes altogether. Roles and Powers is all you would need in theory. What your character's background is, how they choose to fight, all that stuff, is a question of how you play (and roleplay) the character.

The only reason I can see for not dumping classes in favour of roles is balancing mechanics, and even then, I'm not sure I'm convinced.

I agree, and strongly at that.

Classes? Go for it.

Rules and powers? By all means!

BOTH? Now we're getting problematic.

 

[MyISPHatesENWorld]

My take on this is that, given the new power(s) structure, to properly incorporate all the cool TWF things, you need to have them logically laid out in a class.

I will reserve all final judgments until I actually see how flexible the system is.

I mean, I don't care what the class is called, I care about what the PC can do.

Like you, I'm reserving judgment until I see the system in whole. But it looks to me like the new power structure makes it really simple to create balanced two-weapon fighting powers for any class.

Check out the Stormwarden paragon path.

How much TWF goodness comes from the ranger class itself isn't clear, though. But the Warden is using TWF powers so you'd expect that most TWF fighting is conducted through powers. A second attack through a feat is out of whack compared to other feats we've seen.

I'm getting the same impression that TWF is going to be tied primarily to powers.

Going off of the Dwarven Weapon Training feat giving +2 to damage with Axes and Hammers, the Backstabber feat giving a boost in Sneak Attack die, and the theoretical feat to use a superior light weapon like a Rapier for a Rogue, it is hard to see getting [W] damage or especially [W] plus stat or something from high damage weapons an extra time per round from a feat.

I could see a string of feats that allow use of a dagger (only) in an off hand with stuff like:
-One attack for [W] damage (1d4) with no other damage added (except maybe for a magic weapon bonus which would make it scale with leveling?)
-A bonus of +x to AC when holding a dagger in your off hand (x=whatever is a balanced number, which looks like +1 AC at paragon level with maybe a +1 to doing something more specific to match Chainmail Specialization).
EDIT: With the minion 1 HP thing, an extra attack for 1 damage might be useful enough for a feat. A little boost against tough enemies and the ability to clear your area of an extra minion. It may be useful enough alone to have an extra attack to the same target you attack with your primary weapon for 1d4 (or a bonus to damage of +2 to your primary weapon attack) as a feat and a separate feat to do 1 damage as an extra attack to a second target to clear a minion.