TWF and you

[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.