Didn’t Aragorn use two swords from the Lord of the Rings use two swords? I thought that was the premise for using two swords in 2nd ed, because it came out lomg before the Drizzt books.
And I agree the Drizzt books have become a really bad recycled bash. Long Internal Drama venture-face an army in small and large battles-Survive such battles with a new perspective on life...rinse repeat.
Yeah, I too meant to say more that sneak attacks (or backstabbing as the old school players call it) and fighting with two weapons are similar things in that they are fighting styles (I am not referring to feats, I am referring to the real life use of those words).
To separately allow effective fighting with two weapons with feats only is to me about the same thing as allowing sneak attacking with feats. You could do it, but you’d have an endless list of powers that could also be feats and vice versa. You just have to decide how to split things.
In 4e, you can fight with two weapons even without taking feats, but the benefit is nothing really. You just wield two weapons and choose which one you use to hit when you make an attack (basic attack or melee power). The feats then can give you some benefits, but none of the benefits can make you perform things that are equivalent to something that powers can do - this is a deliberate design choice.
Multiclass feats are an exception to the above, they give you a limited way of using the other classes power. The sneak of shadows feat even allows you to sneak attack once per encounter, which actually is pretty neat.
It’s an antiquated term that has no real value in our modern-day discussions.
What I meant by difference is not in the affect of the ability but in the sort of training needed to utilize it.
Another example would be casting rituals...no one expects a non-caster (though this term is somewhat obsolete now) to be able to use rituals without a feat, just as it isn’t unexpected that TWF requires feats (ignoring the bonus Rangers receive; and pardon the double negative). My point was to imply that maybe the sneak attack ability should be acquirable (to a limited extent) via feats as well. Though then you have to answer, where does it end???
Ah, now I understand where you’re coming from. Sorta.
Two-weapon fighting was always an option accessible to every class, but it was a specialized talent of certain ranger-builds. In game terms, they were not a true feature, but a benefit or an option. But that was the previous editions. Now, rangers are specialized in a way that no other class could be unless they also trained as a ranger. Is this necessarily a bad design? Yes, and no.
It is bad because two-weapon fighting should never have been the exclusive ability of a single class. Sure, other classes have a limited access to it, but they can never match or even come close to what the ranger can do with it because the designers made that a signature feature of that one class. On the other hand, if those abilities were freely shared with other classes, it would diminish what is now a class feature of the ranger and make the class less attractive to players.
The real question is, should two-weapon fighting been made into a class feature for rangers? Some would argue it shouldn’t have, and I’m partially inclined to agree. But by the new ruleset, it fits into the design of a Martial-class Ranger. Had they gone another direction, say expand on the more natural side with animal companions and druidic spellcasting abilities, we probably would have seen a different ranger in the next PHB that showcases different power sources.
Backstabbing, on the other hand, has always been a class feature. Class features define the abilities of the class itself and should be kept exclusive, otherwise it diminishes the value of that class. More importantly, the class feature should compliment and derive from other staple features of the class. In this case, backstabbing works best when skills like bluff, stealth, and abilities that create opportunites to use a sneak attack are readily available to the character. How often would a paladin, for example, be able to make use of sneak attack given the abilites and skills available to him?
And since you mention the ritual casting thing, there’s something I want to point out about that. In order to take the feat, you must be trained in either Arcane or Religion. The only classes that have those skills listed as class skills are: Cleric, Paladin, Warlock, and Wizard. Now correct me if I’m wrong, but the only way you can possibly gain this feat is if your character is either a) a cleric, paladin, warlock, or wizard trained in Arcane or Religion, b) take a multi-class feat to gain trainging in either Arcane or Religion, or c) take the Trained Skill feat to gain training in Arcane or Religion. No matter how you look at it, a character must be trained in the ways of spellcraft (i.e. Arcane or Religion) to be able to use Rituals in the first place. So unless you’re a Cleric or Wizard, who gain the feat for free, you’ll still have to spend at least one, if not two feats in order to make use of it.
This is a good example of how to grant access to ‘class features’ that shouldn’t necessarily be kept exclusive. Two classes (Cleric and Wizard) have access as a bonus. Others (Paladin and Warlock) are better qualified to gain access to it. And the rest have options available to gain access to it, but not without some greater amount of dedication and sacrifice. And let’s face it, the term ‘spell caster’ is a lot more liberal than it used to be, given the ‘magical’ effects that almost every class appears to be capable of. This, in my opinion, is an acceptable design that doesn’t pigeon-hole or limits anyone’s idea of what their characters can and cannot do. I’d like to see more of this in the future, if possible.
Technically we should be talking about rogue weaps and abilities but Rothe pretty much nailed that in the 2nd post so I’m happy where we’re at.
IIRC in 2E Drizzt was dual classed fighter at like 18th level and then retrained all his levels into ranger. after he met Mooshie. But then, you have to take R.A. Salvatore’s word for good when he said that it’s stupid to try to pigeonhole Drizzt into classes.
Sorry Cameron, but in 2E a Drow dual-classing was not possible per the rules, only humans could dual-class and only demihumans could multiclass. That is not to say that Salvatore couldn’t just say he started out a fighter and through some divine means became a ranger, but that goes into literary license and not the rules of a game.
No. I know that is the case in the rules, but I have the 2E FRCS. It lists Drizzt as a 17th level ranger. In the fluff text, it says he was an 18th level fighter as a drow and then retrained all his levels with Mooshie. Not sure where that last level went, but I reread the whole thing again to make sure. I know humans were the only ones who could dual class, but Drizzt had some special thing going on in the 2E rules.
The real question is, should two-weapon fighting been made into a class feature for rangers? Some would argue it shouldn’t have, and I’m partially inclined to agree. But by the new ruleset, it fits into the design of a Martial-class Ranger. Had they gone another direction, say expand on the more natural side with animal companions and druidic spellcasting abilities, we probably would have seen a different ranger in the next PHB that showcases different power sources.
Yes, exactly. Well put btw.
Backstabbing, on the other hand, has always been a class feature. Class features define the abilities of the class itself and should be kept exclusive, otherwise it diminishes the value of that class. More importantly, the class feature should compliment and derive from other staple features of the class. In this case, backstabbing works best when skills like bluff, stealth, and abilities that create opportunites to use a sneak attack are readily available to the character. How often would a paladin, for example, be able to make use of sneak attack given the abilites and skills available to him?
Yup, but I a pally is a some what slanted example, what about a ranger or a Guerrilla fighter?
This is a good example of how to grant access to ‘class features’ that shouldn’t necessarily be kept exclusive. Two classes (Cleric and Wizard) have access as a bonus. Others (Paladin and Warlock) are better qualified to gain access to it. And the rest have options available to gain access to it, but not without some greater amount of dedication and sacrifice. And let’s face it, the term ‘spell caster’ is a lot more liberal than it used to be, given the ‘magical’ effects that almost every class appears to be capable of. This, in my opinion, is an acceptable design that doesn’t pigeon-hole or limits anyone’s idea of what their characters can and cannot do. I’d like to see more of this in the future, if possible.
Right, and I think that was the intention behind TWF feats, but it simply got lost somehow. What I mean is that it feels oh so close to that process that I think they were trying to go there. What I would have liked to see would be a feat that requires at least one of the other heroic TWF feats and grants you access to this base attack:
Two Weapon Attack Standard Action Melee Weapon Requirements: You must be wielding two melee weapons. Target: One creature Attack: Strength - 2 vs AC Hit: 1[W] damage Increase damage to 2[W] at 21st level Hit: You may immediately make an Off Hand Attack using your other weapon
Off Hand Attack Movement Action Melee Weapon Requirements: You must be wielding two melee weapons Target: One creature Attack: Strength - 2 vs AC Hit: 1[W] damage Increase damage to 2[W] at 21st level
I have no idea if this is even viable, but I wanted to use an example.
Agreed, access to rituals was handled very well by the design team.
That and a “spell caster” does really cast anymore...no components to deal with, the book is only there for fluff and to give an excuse for wizzys to have more known dailies.
Yeah, I too meant to say more that sneak attacks (or backstabbing as the old school players call it) and fighting with two weapons are similar things in that they are fighting styles (I am not referring to feats, I am referring to the real life use of those words). <snip>
I have to disagree with this assessment. Two-weapon fighting is a fighting style, while sneak attack is a tactic. You can make a sneak attack while armed with two weapons, provided that one of these weapons allows you to do so (hard to imagine coming in precisely with a great axe, for example). A fighting style is how you arm yourself, which affects the styles and techniques available to you. A tactic is how you use those weapons once you arm yourself, and the way you fight with them.
More to the point, sneak attacks aren’t just a straight tactic that everyone learns; it’s almost a moral, ethical choice to take advantage against an opponent whenever possible. That’s why it’s only associated with certain classes (in previous editions, at least). If you were an honorable character, would you take the unfair opportunity if it presented itself? Rogues are not warriors, so it is a class feature that they are trained to take that advantage whenever they can. That’s my take on it, anyway.
Real life fighting styles can focus on hitting hard or hitting with less force but focusing it at particularly painful or lethal spots. Sneak attack being a result of the latter. Those styles also focus on how to gain opportunities to attack weak spots, like the throat, eyes, joint or groin for example. This is definitely something that is a style of fighting.
Yup, but I a pally is a some what slanted example, what about a ranger or a Guerrilla fighter?
They’re obviously better suited for it because they have more skills and powers that would blend better with the class features of the rogue. The smart thing about this system is that obvious choices, like rangers and rogues, will have better synergy than other options. But the system does not prohibit anyone from trying a paladin/rogue combination if they really want to do so. Will it be an effective combo? Who knows. But what really matters is, did the player take that option to better fit his character concept, or is he looking for a power build? If the former, then it shouldn’t matter. If the latter, I’d say he’s about to come up short and will already be thinking about his next character.
Right, and I think that was the intention behind TWF feats, but it simply got lost somehow. What I mean is that it feels oh so close to that process that I think they were trying to go there. What I would have liked to see would be a feat that requires at least one of the other heroic TWF feats and grants you access to this base attack:
Two Weapon Attack Standard Action Melee Weapon Requirements: You must be wielding two melee weapons. Target: One creature Attack: Strength - 2 vs AC Hit: 1[W] damage Increase damage to 2[W] at 21st level Hit: You may immediately make an Off Hand Attack using your other weapon
Off Hand Attack Movement Action Melee Weapon Requirements: You must be wielding two melee weapons Target: One creature Attack: Strength - 2 vs AC Hit: 1[W] damage Increase damage to 2[W] at 21st level
I have no idea if this is even viable, but I wanted to use an example.
In the last edition, two-weapon fighting was too good to pass up for most people. They tried to balance it with a bunch of feats to simulate the dedication and training it required without restricting anyone from using it. It was also more complicated to keep track of.
This time, it’s a lot more simpler. Anyone can have two weapons in their hands, and a few feats make give you a small benefit for doing so. Is it better than using a two-handed weapon or carrying a shield? No, but it’s not any worse, either. Just different. And that’s where they finally achieved simplicity and balance with their design.
What you’ve done here, however, seems like the obvious approach. The idea of making the secondary attack a move action is interesting, but it might open up the door for complications that we’re not forseeing at this moment. Also, you have to be very specific with the wording. Here’s how I’d write it up (with my own interpretation):
BASIC TWO-WEAPON ATTACK As you strike your opponent with one weapon, you quickly make another attack with your off-hand weapon. At-Will * Weapon Standard Action Melee Weapon Primary Target: One creature Attack: Strength -2 vs AC (main weapon) Hit: 1[W] + Strength modifier damage and make a secondary attack with your off-hand weapon. Increase damage to 2[W] + Strength modifier at 21st level. Secondary Target: Primary target Secondary Attack: Dexterity -2 vs Reflex (off-hand weapon) Hit: 1[W] damage. Increase damage to 2[W] at 21st level.
This makes it a little more interesting to me. Notice that it doesn’t favor a character with a good strength score, making dexterity a more meaningful and pertinent attribute for something that should require more accuracy and control, as opposed to brute force.
Question is, do we stop there or do we continue to make more feats to progress the path? My initial feeling is that we shouldn’t, otherwise we create a series of feats granting unique powers that are open to everyone. I don’t believe that is the way feats are now designed, and I’m not entirely comfortable with this particular idea either.
Real life fighting styles can focus on hitting hard or hitting with less force but focusing it at particularly painful or lethal spots. Sneak attack being a result of the latter. Those styles also focus on how to gain opportunities to attack weak spots, like the throat, eyes, joint or groin for example. This is definitely something that is a style of fighting.
To me, sneak attacks aren’t about scoring a hit a vital or weak point of the anatomy. That seems like common sense in any fighting technique or strategy. I believe that’s where the Critical Hit mechanic comes into play. A sneak attack is when you hit your opponent while their defenses are down, when they’re not looking, or when they find themselves in a position where they cannot defend themselves as actively or effectively as they could. ‘Sneak’ being the operative word here. Again, that’s my own interpretation. We may just have to agree to disagree on it.
I think I agree with both of you on the style thing...but you are both looking at it so differently that it boils down to semantics.
I wish I wasn’t at work when I pulled that TWF thing out, the formatting was horrid. Much better job Louminator, and especially since I forgot about the secondary target thing. I like the idea of DEX for the second shot, that balances really nicely. I still think that either it shouldn’t be a base attack or it should some how use up more actions then just standard or have some other penalty. As a basic attack it is too strong as it is otherwise and it would suffer from the same problem TWF did in 3/3.5. What about make it 1[W] but one die lower (like a smaller version of a weapon)? Over complicated I know but right now I can’t come up with anything better. I’ll think on it.
It should stop here, that is an absolutely must. Some things should remain class abilities only. I still think a sneak attack could be worked as a feat but it would blur that line too much and soon everything would be a feat and we’d be back to 3.5 munchkinism.
Wow that is such as splat book feat if I ever saw one.
{edit: Also, the Twin Strike At-Will Ranger power doesn’t add ability mod damage to damage. Considering that I’d change the damage of both to be something like 1 + Str and 1 + Dex respectively. Low I know, but it gets you the flavor and isn’t over powered. I’m starting to see why they didn’t do this to begin with.}
In the 4e design philosophy, feats do not grant powers (though they might allow you to swap them), they grant bonuses. Making a feat that grants a power, especially an at-will basic attack power, is not a good idea. If you want two-weapon fighting to be a feat, then you need to think along the lines of what kind of bonus is appropriate and balanced. That’s what they did with the current two-weapon fighting feat (which I think is just fine).
If you want to design powers for two-weapon fighting for a fighter (or any other class, for that matter) then you’re designing a power for a specific class. Or you might just go classless and let any character take the already designed ranger powers for two-weapon fighting.
I think I agree with both of you on the style thing...but you are both looking at it so differently that it boils down to semantics.
Very true. But now that we’re down to semantics, all that’s left to look at is game design and balance.
So, should other classes have open access to sneak attack? No. Sneak attack, as defined in the rulebooks is exclusively a class feature of the rogue. Allowing others classes to access it freely would diminish the value of the rogue class if everyone else could do what they do.
Now, does that mean other classes shouldn’t have open access to an ability similar to sneak attack? Not necessarily. They could introduce a Precision Attack ability, for example, that allows a different class to add +2d6/+4d6/+6d6 damage under certain conditions, but those conditions must be different than those given for a sneak attack. Otherwise, it would just be the same ability given a new name, and another class sharing a class feature with the rogue. And that’s all it would really take to offer a similar class feature like Sneak Attack to any other class. Just don’t give away the defining feature of another class. (Hey, I think this is actually on topic again!)
I wish I wasn’t at work when I pulled that TWF thing out, the formatting was horrid. Much better job Louminator, and especially since I forgot about the secondary target thing. I like the idea of DEX for the second shot, that balances really nicely. I still think that either it shouldn’t be a base attack or it should some how use up more actions then just standard or have some other penalty. As a basic attack it is too strong as it is otherwise and it would suffer from the same problem TWF did in 3/3.5. What about make it 1[W] but one die lower (like a smaller version of a weapon)? Over complicated I know but right now I can’t come up with anything better. I’ll think on it.
I’m going to use this as a rule of thumb: if it’s over complicated, there’s probably a better way to do it. It might not make sense logically in real-world terms (something we need to break a habit from), but we should focus on maintaining balance and playability in game terms. People seem to keep forgetting that it is a game, and not a true-life simulation exercise.
On a more relative note, it seems odd to me if this were the only ability in the game that allowed two attacks, but imposed an action penalty for it. It’s a nice idea, but it wouldn’t fit into the current scope of the game rules. Gotta keep that in mind.
In the 4e design philosophy, feats do not grant powers (though they might allow you to swap them), they grant bonuses. Making a feat that grants a power, especially an at-will basic attack power, is not a good idea. If you want two-weapon fighting to be a feat, then you need to think along the lines of what kind of bonus is appropriate and balanced. That’s what they did with the current two-weapon fighting feat (which I think is just fine).
If you want to design powers for two-weapon fighting for a fighter (or any other class, for that matter) then you’re designing a power for a specific class. Or you might just go classless and let any character take the already designed ranger powers for two-weapon fighting.
That’s why I’m feeling uncomfortable about this. Feats and powers are a seperation of the vast scope that feats used to cover in the previous edition. This is a much better approach, IMO, and we should strive to maintain it. (Hear that, all you would-be 3pp potential splat-book pushers?)
So theoretically, if you wanted a class to have special two-weapon abilities and stay “by the rules”, you would need to create a list of powers for each specific class that you wanted to have it. Doing that, however, seems to be stealing the thunder from the ranger class since it is now one of their signature features. I think they really cornered everyone with this. I don’t know that I like it, but I have to accept it for now.
In the 4e design philosophy, feats do not grant powers (though they might allow you to swap them), they grant bonuses.
Channel Divinity : [Flavorful Deity Name] feats
Despite the above you are of course correct, but I would offer a 100% full money back guarantee that we’ll see just that in the first round of splat.
I still think it would be possible to make a basic two weapon attack, maybe use -3 to attack and then just use ability modifier dmg. I guess it is really just pointless and would only be used for people who NEED to have TWF with their base attacks, so I won’t be house ruling it in, but it is the only really good solution if you are going to do it I think.
This all kind of stems from that real life sim vs game mentality. Speaking simply with real world logic it doesn’t make sense for a Range to be the only class to have a two weapon strike, but in game logic it works for many reasons. For classes to work they need to be more rigid then just a name of a field. I’m a software engineer but I have some working knowledge of hardware and I put that knowledge to use daily, but if I were running a d20 modern game and making a s/w engineers class it wouldn’t include such h/w abilities nor would I want to grant just anybody access to them outside of system and electrical engineers.
