TWF and you

jeffhartsell

First Post
IMO you should not be both a defender (MMO tank) and a striker (MMO dps) in the same character. If so, why play a team/cooperative game?

My guess is the next TWF will be another striker, maybe the swashbuckler.

The concept of the current fighter is a heavily armored sword & board or two-hander. That is the downside with the current role system. Certain character concepts won't work until more classes are released.

Keep in mind that 3e needed years to get where it is today with all of the variations. And the inventive 3e multiclassing gave us so much flexibility it allowed people to overshadow and take over a game.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Fanaelialae

Legend
Just for the record, the ranger's connection to TWF goes back at least to 2nd edition AD&D (I'm not certain about 1st ed.), where the ranger was the only class that granted TWF without penalties (provided you weren't wearing armor heavier than studded leather). You could get the same effect with any other character, but you needed a 21 Dex which was virtually impossible to achieve in that edition unless your DM was unusually generous. Also, our characters had to walk uphill both ways over broken glass wearing boots with no soles...

Rangers don't TWF because of Drizzt, Drizzt TWFs because he was a ranger. 2nd edition came first. ;)

Unless the designers are aiming for a paradigm shift for the ranger, it seems likely they'll still be the TWF specialist, since the ranger has been precisely that for the last two editions. With any luck 4e will do the TWF ranger more justice than 3.x did.
 

Piratecat

Sesquipedalian
Fanaelialae said:
Rangers don't TWF because of Drizzt, Drizzt TWFs because he was a ranger. 2nd edition came first. ;)
Sadly, this isn't the case! We did the research last year, and the first Salvatore book with Drizzt preceded 2nd edition; The Crystal Shard was 1988, 2nd Edition was 1990. Many of us, myself included, were quite surprised by this.

Either way, two handed fighting for rangers has been in the game for 18 years at this point. I'm okay with it.
 

A'koss

Explorer
Piratecat said:
Sadly, this isn't the case! We did the research last year, and the first Salvatore book with Drizzt preceded 2nd edition; The Crystal Shard was 1988, 2nd Edition was 1990. Many of us, myself included, were quite surprised by this.
Indeed, it was even said by TPTB that Rangers got TWF from Driz'zt, and I remember it because it drove me up the wall. So while I've never liked it and never thought it made sense, at the end of the day I'll be happy so long as Fighters and Rogues have the option as well... :)
 

JVisgaitis

Explorer
Piratecat said:
Sadly, this isn't the case! We did the research last year, and the first Salvatore book with Drizzt preceded 2nd edition; The Crystal Shard was 1988, 2nd Edition was 1990. Many of us, myself included, were quite surprised by this.

2nd Edition was 1999 at least according to Wikipedia... There was a quote in Skills & Powers by Zeb I believe, that said Drizzt was so popular that he influenced the design of the Ranger in 2nd Edition. I don't know what is so surprising about that.

Turning back to TWF in 4e, I think having it require powers is a very GOOD thing. Whose to say that you can't pick up TWF with a couple feats? I think everyone that thinks TWF is only going to be available to Ranger is crazy. That makes no sense whatsoever and I can't imagine WotC doing something so daft.
 

Fanaelialae

Legend
Piratecat said:
Sadly, this isn't the case! We did the research last year, and the first Salvatore book with Drizzt preceded 2nd edition; The Crystal Shard was 1988, 2nd Edition was 1990. Many of us, myself included, were quite surprised by this.

Either way, two handed fighting for rangers has been in the game for 18 years at this point. I'm okay with it.

Wow, I'm really surprised! Thanks for letting me know. :)
 

JVisgaitis said:
Turning back to TWF in 4e, I think having it require powers is a very GOOD thing. Whose to say that you can't pick up TWF with a couple feats? I think everyone that thinks TWF is only going to be available to Ranger is crazy. That makes no sense whatsoever and I can't imagine WotC doing something so daft.

I think that's about as daft as requiring rangers to have TWF... which we did see in 3.0. WotC is capable of being daft about some things.

Piratecat said:
Either way, two handed fighting for rangers has been in the game for 18 years at this point. I'm okay with it.

It's been complained about for 18 years, too. Compare with things like Vancian magic, which is even older and is getting removed (at least partially) from the game.
 

ProfessorCirno

Banned
Banned
jeffhartsell said:
IMO you should not be both a defender (MMO tank) and a striker (MMO dps) in the same character. If so, why play a team/cooperative game?

You have over a hunderd posts and you've been here since 2002, so I'm not sure you did this intentionally, but that statement is exactly what fuels the fires of many people who dislike or are iffy about 4e. It's not an MMO, it shouldn't be an MMO, nor should it ever even be CLOSE to an MMO.

Being in a team isn't just about maximizing your party. And again, it should never be about that. I've had just as much fun with a four bard barbershop quartet party then I had with warrior/rogue/wizard/cleric. More fun, for that matter. Being in a team is about playing with other people. This isn't pokemon, you don't have to be the best there ever was :D
 

parcival42

First Post
Fanaelialae said:
Rangers don't TWF because of Drizzt, Drizzt TWFs because he was a ranger. 2nd edition came first. ;)

Not to argue for or against Rangers fighting with two-weapons, but I thought of a couple other rangers that did: Hawkeye from The Last of the Mohicans (the movie) and Edgtho from 13th Warrior (he was the Finn in black).

As another justification (even though I said I wasn't arguing for or against...just playing devil's advocate), while ranging through the wilderness, being self-sufficient, you'd want to travel light, but also carry everything you need with you. Light weapons that could be used as tools, such as knives, hatchets, axes, etc would be necessary for survival and used for fighting. Carrying a shield would be burdensome running through underbrush and wouldn't be an efficient use of your carrying capacity. I think the same would go for long blades and double weapons. When you do get into a close fight, you're going to pull the weapons you have at hand, and if you have both hands free why not pull those daggers and axes on your belt...
 

Saeviomagy

Adventurer
Perhaps the two-weapon fighting feat is going to be something as simple as allowing you to cleave if you're wielding two weapons (ie - weapon damage to primary target, bonuses to secondary target).
 

Voidrunner's Codex

Remove ads

Top