TWF and you

[jeffhartsell]

In WoW (yeah, I know, cue the scary music), Warriors can be defenders (Protection) or strikers (Fury/Arms). In fact, we even call the DPS warriors "Rogues in Plate" for a reason. They duel wield and pump out the damage.

Agree. But you cannot do both at the same time. You can retrain for either role, but that is not like being both prot and fury simultaneously.

Some people want the good ol' 3e fighter/rogue in mithral breastplate with evasion, sneak, 2h or TWF, animated shield, uncanny dodge, etc.

Anyway, that discussion just opens up a flame war.

Me, I am just really looking forward to seeing what WOTC R&D has thought up. I doubt I'll be 100% in agreement with their vision, but I know I'll enjoy it regardless.

 

[Mort_Q]

Anyway, that discussion just opens up a flame war.

You had me at animated shield.

 

[MyISPHatesENWorld]

Some people want the good ol' 3e fighter/rogue in mithral breastplate with evasion, sneak, 2h or TWF, animated shield, uncanny dodge, etc.

It's funny, but having played in as many as 3 or 4 sessions a week with different groups in everything from one shots to multi-year campaigns since 3.x was released, I've never seen anyone use an animated shield in play.

 

[jeffhartsell]

Animated is an oft-forgotten enchantment to shields. IIRC they prevent evasion, but it has been awhile since I had to look it up. I've been trying warblade lately with 2h fighting plus an animated shield.

I'm curious how that type of item would work in 4e, if at all.

Anyway, back on topic, I do hope there end up being TWF powers for more than just rangers and more than just per encounter. But I am not optimistic.

 

[Zinger2099]

I'd just like to point this article out to anyone who has said that the Ranger shouldn't be the TWF guy it should be the Fighter.

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/drdd/20070816b

Here’s a highly probable conversation lifted from the future, one year from today, as two players who’ve just met at a convention discuss their PC choices for their upcoming D&D game.

“I’m playing a 3rd-level human fighter named Graelar.”

“Cool. Is he weapon and shield or two-hander?”

“He’s sword and board, man.”

Aparantly, acording to that, there is a (and I quote) "Highly Probably" chance that a Fighter can be an effective Two-Weapon-Fighter.

I like that Rangers have TWF as one of their shticks, and for reasons other then the pop culture character. I never liked Drrizt (or however his name is spelt). But Rangers to me have always resounded as a TWF when it comes to melee. Why? They don't strike me as the ordinary Sword-and-board type. They strike me as someone who would drop the extra defense for that extra chance to strike a killing blow. Best defense is a good offense. That to me, is a Ranger, who specializes in dealing with wild boars and other natural threats in their forays into the wilderness. They don't fight your typical oponent that uses a weapon, they fight creatures that attack you with bites and claws, and that type of opponent isn't easily turned by a shield. I have no problem with Rangers having a TWF speck. In fact, I say take it all the way. No one should match a Ranger at TWF, not even the Fighter (but a Fighter should be able to TWF, if not as well).

My two cents.

 

[AverageCitizen]

I'd just like to point this article out to anyone who has said that the Ranger shouldn't be the TWF guy it should be the Fighter.

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/drdd/20070816b

Aparantly, acording to that, there is a (and I quote) "Highly Probably" chance that a Fighter can be an effective Two-Weapon-Fighter.

They mean two-hands on one weapon.

 

[jeffhartsell]

They mean two-hands on one weapon.

This.

But I also agree a "fighter" should be able to TWF. In 4e it appears that martial "fighter" class is the ranger. My guess is the swashbuckler will be the next martial class that can TWF at-will.

My bet is other classes can TWF via encounter powers. Which is... okay...if you cannot use a shield, but you have to suspend belief.

The current Fighter class role looks to be sword and board or two-handed weapon.

 

[MyISPHatesENWorld]

That to me, is a Ranger, who specializes in dealing with wild boars and other natural threats in their forays into the wilderness. They don't fight your typical oponent that uses a weapon, they fight creatures that attack you with bites and claws, and that type of opponent isn't easily turned by a shield. I have no problem with Rangers having a TWF speck. In fact, I say take it all the way. No one should match a Ranger at TWF, not even the Fighter (but a Fighter should be able to TWF, if not as well).

My two cents.

If you need to kill boar and such, your best bet is a spear - such as the "boar spear" which has wings at the base of the blade to keep the boar from pushing itself down the length of the spear and goring you. Some people use a knife (or in the past used a sword) in conjunction with a team of dogs, but that's a thrill thing (you typically use a team of dogs with a spear as well on a planned hunt).

Not that that should make the two-weapon ranger not possible for people to play, but hunting or killing animals doesn't work as a justification for making TWF the sole province of the ranger or something that the ranger should be best at.

 

[Mr. Wilson]

Agree. But you cannot do both at the same time. You can retrain for either role, but that is not like being both prot and fury simultaneously.

Agreed. Sorry if I wasn't clearer in stating you could be one or the other. I'd also hope this translates to 4E.

It's just inconcievable to me that only Rangers would get to duel wield. Rogues and Fighters deserve to be able to duel wield as well, and I'd houserule to allow it almost immediately.

 

[ProfessorCirno]

Best defense is a good offense. That to me, is a Ranger, who specializes in dealing with wild boars and other natural threats in their forays into the wilderness. They don't fight your typical oponent that uses a weapon, they fight creatures that attack you with bites and claws, and that type of opponent isn't easily turned by a shield. I have no problem with Rangers having a TWF speck. In fact, I say take it all the way. No one should match a Ranger at TWF, not even the Fighter (but a Fighter should be able to TWF, if not as well).

My two cents.

Using two weapons, two SHORT weapons at that, is probably the worst method imaginable to hunt animals.

You shoot them, then skin them. You don't go head to head with a boar. And you don't try to rush and use a "strong offense" against a creature that's half your size, outweighs you, and only gets madder, stronger, and more eager to throw itself into danger as you wound it.

If anything, ranger should be the opposite. Slow and very precise. If we're going to continue using the boar example, you want that sucker far away, and you want it dead as fast as possible, with as few shots as possible, because anything that isn't aimed right against that beast will only piss it off more.

Boars in vaguely medieval times were very serious business.