Two-blades ranger with two bastards - kosher?

[Herschel]

For fighters, there's quite simply a real world point-of-reference. Not so for wizards.

Some of us don't like cheeseball action flicks either.

 

[The_Spider]

Historical bastard swords are quite light and balanced, something in the 3-4 lb. range. Although they were more often used two-handed, it's not a stretch by any means to have them be used one-handed, especially in heroic fantasy of D&D. Among some of the really goofy weapon styles to come out of this game, twin bastard sword usage is actually fairly mundane and reasonable.

Its not the weight that matters as much as the length. Using two bastard length weapons inhibits movement and make your attack awkward and predictable, which isnt reflected in the rules. I would discourage it because the player is probably doing it purely from a min/max approach. However its not a big deal if you let him have it either.

 

[MyISPHatesENWorld]

3. Because fighters are/were "real". Wizards were not, in the D&D sense. Fighters can be "real" and "cinematic" at the same time, the amount of cheese individuals or groups like or perceive varies.

So, do you not allow races that aren't real like halfings, dwarves, elves, eladrin, dragonborn, half-elves or tieflings to be fighters so you can preserve the non-cheesiness? I'm having a hard time grasping any meaning to cheese/cheesy from you other than you don't like something, so you're disparaging it using a word that attaches a negative connotation to it and people that do like it.

 

[Campbell]

I'm not sure how anyone can claim that created a ranger that wields two bastard swords is definitively power gaming.

Power gaming is about motive, not the end result. It involves crunching numbers in order to create the most mechanically impressive character you can.

There are plenty of reasons to create a character that dual wields bastard swords that have nothing to do with power gaming.

1. You might have just finished painting one of those GW minis that wield two oversize swords, and you're basing your character on that mini.
2. You might have just watched Final Fantasy VII: Advent Children and want a character that fights like Cloud fights in that movie.
3. Your character might be really strong and have a massive frame.
4. You might want to have your character wield physically imposing weapons.
5. You just think wielding two bastard swords might be cool.

It is most definitely wahoo. It might not be power gaming, although it is a strong power gaming choice.

That being said I'm not really a fan of dual bastard sword wielding for aesthetic reasons. I like it when dual wielders use lighter weapons - it helps to evoke the image of someone who is quick and deadly and that's the image of dual wielders I prefer.

 

[Ahglock]

But that's the point. If you're willing to accept fireball throwing wizards, teleporting at (near) will elves etc. Why can you not accept that someone is physicaly adept enough to jump five stories without dying? Is it realistic? not at all, but it's well within cinematic convention.

If you're going to move the suspension of disbelief bar, why are you only moving it for one class of characters? I just find it silly to think "magic missle throwing wizard - wow that's cool"; fighter that can wield 2 large blades
"oh that's cheesy, you'd never see that in real life."

I really don't understand what you are not getting here. It is perfectly understandable to think in a world where magic exists crazy magic things can happen, and at the same time say when magic is not involved the craziness should be on a somewhat realistic scale. Games like this can even end up being totally balanced since damage is done with HP. Martial types can still have maneuvers like death blows, hamstrings, and just hits for huge damage. Heck just earthdawn it and say all the martial powers are magically charged, and I suspect the realism complaints will disappear.

I actually get the premise of the complaint and as I said earlier my complaint with 4e is it either went to far in breaking suspension of disbelief or not far enough. They past cheese ball action movies like commando(awesome movie), but we got super powers and not super powers. If you are going to drop realism in the non magical realm give me super powers. I'd of been fine if the realism had stayed in the action movie range of things, but it past that point a while back.

 

[Ahglock]

Some of us don't like cheeseball action flicks either.

I understand that you are a heathen but do you have to be so in your face about it.

 

[Moon-Lancer]

If you're going to move the suspension of disbelief bar, why are you only moving it for one class of characters? I just find it silly to think "magic missile throwing wizard - wow that's cool"; fighter that can wield 2 large blades
"oh that's cheesy, you'd never see that in real life."

Sword fighting can be criticized because it is apart of history and reality. Magic is not. At least that's how it see it.

By keeping some parts believable one also helps to meld the magic to the reality and give it life.

Otherwise everyone will have a power level of 10 thousand.

Everyone has their own point where they draw the line and at what point too much is just too much. for me its dual wielding longsword or bastard swords For others it might be having enough natural strength to lift up a ?Terrasc? with a single finger and kick it into the sun. and even that may not be enough for others.

Without limits, characters fail. Its just a question of where that limitation must be drawn?

 

[Herschel]

I understand that you are a heathen but do you have to be so in your face about it.

Oh no, you did NOT go there! That's it! I'm sending you 72 copies of "Gigli" for Christmas!

 

[RangerWickett]

Back in 3e, E.N. Publishing released a book called "Four Color to Fantasy," a superpowers add on for 3rd edition. One of the sample characters we presented was Zidi Wheatling, the halfling titan. The artist's inside joke was that she illustrated 3'4" Zidi wielding Cloud's sword from FF7 as her primary weapon, and Tidus's watery bastard sword as her off-hand weapon.

But she was a superhero, so it was okay.

In my games, if a player wants to do something that normal people simply cannot possibly accomplish physically, like wield a pair of greatswords as if they were escrima sticks, then we just decide, "Okay, your character has some inherent magical powers that let you pull this off." I run a pretty flexible style setting, so if a player wants to be superhuman, it's fine with me.

If, however, the majority of the group prefers more clear delineation between what is magical (wizards, warlocks) and what is mundane (fighters, rangers), and if the group believes there can be no such thing as a magical warrior, then for the sake of the rest of the group's enjoyment, the player who wanted to be a super-strong warrior should change his character idea.

For me, though, I see no problem with magical warriors, even if the Rules as Written says they have a 'martial' power source as opposed to a 'magical' one.

 

[Moon-Lancer]

wow, that halfing is huge!

just a random thought

i think using flavor as an excuse to shaft someone on the rules wise is pretty low. If the rules allow for dual wielding d10 weapons i wouldn't use flavor as an excuse and force the dual wilder into wielding d6 weapons or a d6 and a d8.

I get pretty annoyed when someone wants to play something more realistic and get shafted because of it.