How does two handed combat work? How does someone hit something with the offhand weapon?
What is the best dungeon tile starter product to buy? How do they work, does one cut them up into shapes or ...?
D&D minatures, whats the best way to get started? Are they like cards where you get random ones in a pack, or does every set contain the same models? Is there a quick way to build up a collection cheaply? (other than ebay obviously
)Feel free to give me book references, I have DMG, PHB1, MM.
Thanks,
How does two handed combat work? How does someone hit something with the offhand weapon?
You can attack with either your on or off-hand weapon. You need a power to do both (i.e. Ranger powers)
What is the best dungeon tile starter product to buy? How do they work, does one cut them up into shapes or ...?
YMMV. I like the ones with gray tiles because they're pretty interchangable. The tiles are on cardboard cutouts in varying shapes and sizes. You don't custom cut them (I guess you could, but...)
D&D minatures, whats the best way to get started? Are they like cards where you get random ones in a pack, or does every set contain the same models? Is there a quick way to build up a collection cheaply? (other than ebay obviously )
This is a tough one. Minis can be expensive. I usually have minis for the big bads and the pcs and print out pictures I yanked from google images or scanned in from the monster manual for the normal baddies. You can get random packs now or order individuals. In a month or so you can buy non random pc character minis and semi random monster minis specifically designed for RPG play.
Hope I was helpful.
How does two handed combat work? How does someone hit something with the offhand weapon?
When fighting with two weapons, if the power requires one weapon, you may use either weapon to attack while using the power. You can only attack with both weapons if the power says you make attacks with both weapons. Twin Strike is such a power that allows you to attack with both weapons. If you use Careful Attack, you do not get to attack with both weapons. You choose which weapon to use when attacking with Careful Attack.
Feel free to give me book references, I have DMG, PHB1, MM.
See PHB1 p.217 in the Off-Hand paragraph.
You can attack with either your on or off-hand weapon. You need a power to do both (i.e. Ranger powers)
So with Twin Strike you would use a different weapon for each strike?
So with Twin Strike you would use a different weapon for each strike?
You'll find the power description on PH 105. The melee version uses "two melee weapons... main weapon and off-hand weapon" while the ranged version gives you two shots with the same weapon (usually a bow).
- Alane -
So it seems its mainly a ranger that can do things well with two weapons now?
Yep. Rangers are 4e's dual-wield class.
- Alane -
So it seems its mainly a ranger that can do things well with two weapons now?
The Tempest fighter in Martial power can as well - and I'm sure, since MP2 is on the horizon, that we will get more two weapon builds.
Thanks Alane
Any time! And welcome back to the game, by the way.
- Alane -
The Tempest fighter in Martial power can as well - and I'm sure, since MP2 is on the horizon, that we will get more two weapon builds.
Is that more like your traditional, two weapon weilding fighter?
If so, I may have to invest in that!
Is that more like your traditional, two weapon weilding fighter?
If so, I may have to invest in that!
Yep. The Ranger is still the only one who gets to wield regular one-handed weapons in both hands (so you could dual-wield longswords or battleaxes, for example). Tempest Fighters need to use at least one off-hand weapon.
Yep. The Ranger is still the only one who gets to wield regular one-handed weapons in both hands (so you could dual-wield longswords or battleaxes, for example). Tempest Fighters need to use at least one off-hand weapon.
Since I don't know which combat style Chane means by "traditional", I'll give a couple examples.
The Dual-Rapiers TWF uses the Ranger class.
[indent]Historical Rapier fighting, where you picked up a second weapon on the battlefield[/indent]
The Katana-Wakizashi TWF uses the Tempest class.
[indent]Sword and Man-gauche or Samurai defender[/indent]
The Dual-Shortswords TWF uses the Tempest class.
[indent]No clue really[/indent]
The Martial-artist "TWF" uses either class.
[indent]Reflavouring of "flurry" to TWF...[/indent]
The Two-Longswords-At-Once TWF uses the Ranger class.
[indent]Historical Rapier fighting, where your two blades used the same sheath[/indent]
Since I don't know which combat style Chane means by "traditional", I'll give a couple examples.
Thanks for the info.
I was thinking of the two weapon fighting style from the 2nd Ed Skills and Powers book. Along with the ambidextry skill i guess.
How does two handed combat work? How does someone hit something with the offhand weapon?
It doesn't, unless you're a ranger!
What is the best dungeon tile starter product to buy? How do they work, does one cut them up into shapes or ...?
The dwarven ruins one was pretty good, but it depends on what your group does a lot of. Honestly, though, the dungeon tiles aren't so hot IMHO. Save your money and buy a battle mat from crystalkeep.com.
D&D minatures, whats the best way to get started? Are they like cards where you get random ones in a pack, or does every set contain the same models? Is there a quick way to build up a collection cheaply? (other than ebay obviously
They sell them in random boosters, yes. There are websites where a friend of mine purchases individual minis very cheaply, but I don't know what they are. I know he said you can get most minis for about 99 cents, though. Try Google.
Welcome back to the hobby, by the way, and if you find yourself looking for a game that's a little bit deeper (and a bit more challenging to run), give 3.5 a shot someday. The books are cheap now!
'cept it doesn't pay but is just as soul crushing.
"A bit more challenging" is an understatement Rake, running 3.5 is like a part time job.
Nah, not at all. Once you have the hang of it (and can navigate, or just bookmark, the DMG) it's just challenge enough to satisfy. The game is tougher on the players, too, and paints a grittier picture. Makes victory a little sweeter.
If the OP has been out of the loop since 2e, though, best to start with 4.0. It is more user-friendly, and it comes with kid gloves.
Welcome back to the hobby, by the way, and if you find yourself looking for a game that's a little bit deeper (and a bit more challenging to run), give 3.5 a shot someday. The books are cheap now!
Deeper? Pfft. You have a right to your own opinion, but don't act as if it was a universal truth. 3E was no "deeper" than 4E. I understand that some people mistake "cluncky" with "challanging" or "deep", but that's not really the case.
Nah, not at all. Once you have the hang of it (and can navigate, or just bookmark, the DMG) it's just challenge enough to satisfy. The game is tougher on the players, too, and paints a grittier picture. Makes victory a little sweeter.
Yeah, victory was really sweet when you got to say "save or die, I win, next". really meanigful.
If the OP has been out of the loop since 2e, though, best to start with 4.0. It is more user-friendly, and it comes with kid gloves.
"Kid gloves"? Wow, the hyperbole jsut keeps flowing!
Serious, Rake, stop trying to pawn off your baaawing about the edition change as some sort of truth. 4E only has "kid gloves" if the DM runs it that way.
Deeper? Pfft. You have a right to your own opinion, but don't act as if it was a universal truth. 3E was no "deeper" than 4E. I understand that some people mistake "cluncky" with "challanging" or "deep", but that's not really the case.
Well, no. It's not 'untrue' to say that 3.5 had more to master, more to consider, more options due to a longer edition life thus far, and more resources for players and DMs manage. In fact, the resources that you managed were sometimes different from class to class. It isn't universally true that every gamer is looking for a game like that, though.
Also:
"Kid gloves"? Wow, the hyperbole jsut keeps flowing!
Serious, Rake, stop trying to pawn off your baaawing about the edition change as some sort of truth. 4E only has "kid gloves" if the DM runs it that way.
No hyperbole, and not 'baaaw-ing', just thought the OP might enjoy another style of game at least as much as he'll enjoy 4.0. Most gamers do.
I don't think I know any D&D gamers that never dabble in other systems, and most players didn't switch 100% to 4.0. The majority of 4.0 players still play 3.5, too, in my experience (which, while not vast, is fairly significant).
Also, what you say isn't true. Played straight, it's much more difficult to die in 4.0. At mid-to-high levels, it takes multiple coup-de-grace to down a character. And eventually, just about everyone gets some way to cheat death.
Plus, with less randomized factors, a lot more hit points all around, and self-sufficient healing for everyone, you have more time to assess a combat and predict it's outcome, since battles are less swingy and run a lot longer. This means you have more time and more opportunity to run from a too-dangerous opponent.
Minimizing character death and extending combats length (for exactly the reasons described above) are a few of the (developer-stated) 4.0 design goals.
Well, no. It's not 'untrue' to say that 3.5 had more to master, more to consider, more options due to a longer edition life thus far, and more resources for players and DMs manage. In fact, the resources that you managed were sometimes different from class to class. It isn't universally true that every gamer is looking for a game like that, though.
This is why the arguement that when use use every book ever made for it, 3E was "more complex" or "more complete" than the first, what, 11 books of 4E, is a flawed arguement. Give it time. Hell, we ALREADY have another old-school multi-hit TWF option.
Also, more resource management systems does not make the game automaticlly "more deep". It jsut means it has more ways to go wrong.
No hyperbole, and not 'baaaw-ing', just thought the OP might enjoy another style of game at least as much as he'll enjoy 4.0. Most gamers do.
He might. But it would have been better if you had framed your endorsment if 3E as "You might also want to check out Third Edition", instead of "LOL 4E is for babies! Play 3E! It's deeper!"
I don't think I know any D&D gamers that never dabble in other systems, and most players didn't switch 100% to 4.0. The majority of 4.0 players still play 3.5, too, in my experience (which, while not vast, is fairly significant).
I don't see a problem with people playing different games at the same time. That isn't the issue though. I wasn't jumping on you because you dare to mention the Devil Edition. I did it because at the same time you were trying to devalue 4E.
Also, what you say isn't true. Played straight, it's much more difficult to die in 4.0. At mid-to-high levels, it takes multiple coup-de-grace to down a character. And eventually, just about everyone gets some way to cheat death.
Killing off players left and right is not the only way to give a sense of danger. 4E gives a sense of danger by making every combat actually meaningful.
Plus, with less randomized factors, a lot more hit points all around, and self-sufficient healing for everyone, you have more time to assess a combat and predict it's outcome, since battles are less swingy and run a lot longer. This means you have more time and more opportunity to run from a too-dangerous opponent.
And I don't see how this is a problem. Why is it inherintly better for people to be dieing every two seconds? This was the only way to give a sense of danger in previous editions. Now that is not the only option.
Minimizing character death and extending combats length (for exactly the reasons described above) are a few of the (developer-stated) 4.0 design goals.
This does not mean that the game uses "kiddy gloves". It just means that the paradogim has shifted from "You stepped on the SoD trap YOU DIE HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!" to "After a hard-fought battle, your party manages to come out victorious, but not without a struggle. It looked like it might have been the end for a while there."
Anyway, this is really off topic, and it's just a derail. Let's admit we have different opinions and leave it at that. You can continue to endorse 3E. But you don't have to fall into the old "4E sucks, play 3E instead" routine.
This is why the arguement that when use use every book ever made for it, 3E was "more complex" or "more complete" than the first, what, 11 books of 4E, is a flawed arguement. Give it time. Hell, we ALREADY have another old-school multi-hit TWF option.
Also, more resource management systems does not make the game automaticlly "more deep". It jsut means it has more ways to go wrong.
Unless 4.0 subverts itself, it will not likely achieve the same level of complexity. It's not designed to be as complex, it's designed to be more streamlined (which is fine).
As for resource management, the concept does not 'just mean it has more ways to go wrong'. Some of the most successful games (tabletop and otherwise) in the world are centered around the idea of resource management. 3.5 had more layers, more subsystems to understand, and more relationships to understand (as in, how one mechanic interacts with another). 4.0's mechanics are more consistent, and more similar to one another. There are also far fewer subsystems, especially since each class draws from the exact same type of, and roughly the same number of, resources (at-will, encounter, and daily powers, feats, and skill points).
You can say 3.5 has more depth, or you can call it 'more nuanced' or 'more complex', but regardless of the name you give to it, the idea isn't really up for debate. 4.0 is designed to have less complexity and more consistency.
As for wether or not that is good or bad, I made (and make) no mention.
He might. But it would have been better if you had framed your endorsment if 3E as "You might also want to check out Third Edition", instead of "LOL 4E is for babies! Play 3E! It's deeper!"
I wasn't jumping on you because you dare to mention the Devil Edition. I did it because at the same time you were trying to devalue 4E.
See "as for wether or not that is good or bad, I made no mention", above. With all the sincerest respect, please refrain from 'translating' what I said for me. It's not helpful.
Killing off players left and right is not the only way to give a sense of danger. 4E gives a sense of danger by making every combat actually meaningful.
And I don't see how this is a problem. Why is it inherintly better for people to be dieing every two seconds? This was the only way to give a sense of danger in previous editions. Now that is not the only option.
Hm. I'll bite. In what way does 4.0 improve on the 'meaningfulness' of combat in a way that contributes to the player's sense of danger?
And in what way was killing PCs 'every two seconds' the only way to give the players the impression of danger in previous editions? I don't see why either of these should be true at all. They definately seem like DM issues, not edition issues.
You can continue to endorse 3E. But you don't have to fall into the old "4E sucks, play 3E instead" routine.
Glad I have your permission, but I said no such thing. ;)
This does not mean that the game uses "kiddy gloves". It just means that the paradogim has shifted from "You stepped on the SoD trap YOU DIE HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!" to "After a hard-fought battle, your party manages to come out victorious, but not without a struggle. It looked like it might have been the end for a while there."
If the term 'kiddie gloves' offended your edition-based-preferences, I'm sorry. What I meant to express is that there is a much, much wider margin for error, and a much larger window for fixing said errors. Death is very, very avoidable compared to any previous edition. This isn't a 'devaluation', it's a fair statement that is both demonstratable and developer-endorsed.
If the term 'kiddie gloves' offended your edition-based-preferences, I'm sorry. What I meant to express is that there is a much, much wider margin for error, and a much larger window for fixing said errors. Death is very, very avoidable compared to any previous edition. This isn't a 'devaluation', it's a fair statement that is both demonstratable and developer-endorsed.
Are you honestly trying to tell me that comments like "it even has kiddy gloves" are not a value statement? You could have said "Death is not as prevelant" or "more avoidable". But you instead chose to say "kiddy". This seems to imply that you think it is more juvinile for death to not be as common.
As well, "3E is deeper" is also a value statement. It implies that 4E is "shallow" in comparison. 4E is less complex, I will agree. But it is not less "deep". There is a great wealth of customization to be had.
There are ways to get your message across without resorting to value statements.
Are you honestly trying to tell me that comments like "it even has kiddy gloves" are not a value statement? You could have said "Death is not as prevelant" or "more avoidable". But you instead chose to say "kiddy". This seems to imply that you think it is more juvinile for death to not be as common.
Again, I'm (genuinely) sorry if I wasn't thinking in terms of offending someone's preferences. I am very content to use the phrase 'death is much more avoidable' or 'there is much less to fear from monsters'. Consider 'kiddie gloves' revoked and refer instead to the above statements.
As well, "3E is deeper" is also a value statement. It implies that 4E is "shallow" in comparison. 4E is less complex, I will agree. But it is not less "deep". There is a great wealth of customization to be had.
It is less deep. It's not shallow (checkers is shallow), but it is LESS deep or MORE shallow than 3.5 is. Use a different word if you like. 'Deep' isn't inherently good.
It is less deep. It's not shallow (checkers is shallow), but it is LESS deep or MORE shallow than 3.5 is. Use a different word if you like. 'Deep' isn't inherently good.
I don't understand though how 3E would be "more deep". Please explain. When I think "deep" in terms of a game, I think of how many options it gives you. 4E gives you tons of meaningful options.
I don't understand though how 3E would be "more deep". Please explain. When I think "deep" in terms of a game, I think of how many options it gives you. 4E gives you tons of meaningful options.
This would appear to be the problem, then. I'm not talking about 'meaningful character creation options', and I don't propose the idea that 4e doesn't have them.
The game as a whole has less to it. There are fewer systems and subsystems, fewer nuances, less to learn, and less to master. That's half the point. Simplicity, modularity, approachability, and less of a learning curve. It's a more basic system.
That does not make it a basic system, just a more basic one by comparison.
Which is fine, and good for the hobby. Nobody said otherwise.
I'm not talking about 'meaningful character creation options',
So F.A.T.A.L. is best because it has the most depth!
So F.A.T.A.L. is best because it has the most depth!
Uh. What? How did you infer this from any statement I made...?
just thought the OP might enjoy another style of game at least as much as he'll enjoy 4.0. Most gamers do.
if you find yourself looking for a game that's a little bit deeper (and a bit more challenging to run), give 3.5 a shot someday.
You think the OP will enjoy a game with more depth than 4E.
I'll be staying at 4e and not reinvesting in 3 or 3.5 so soon.
Thanks
Also note, however, that you don't neccesarily need powers to gain benifits from weilding an offhand weapon. If you take TW Fighting and TW Defense feats, you can gain bonuses for weilding a second weapon.
That struck me as odd, it seemed like the character would just be holding the weapon rather than striking with it, just for a couple of +1s. Or is there more to it?
That struck me as odd, it seemed like the character would just be holding the weapon rather than striking with it, just for a couple of +1s. Or is there more to it?
Yes, there is. Since the game doesn't assume you stand around doing nothing when it isn't your turn, it allows for more customization in TWF attacks.
- Having a second weapon doesn't improve your attacks
- Being trained to fight with two weapons at once allows you to make your opponent more vulnerable to attacks, increasing the damage you deal.
- Having a few tricks (encounter/daily powers) with two weapons allows you to damage with more than one weapon at the "same" time.
- Being an experienced Two-Weapon Fighter (at-wills) allows you to consistantly take advantage of an opening you create with one weapon, to attack with the second.
You think the OP will enjoy a game with more depth than 4E.
Well, yes. I did. How does this imply that I inferred that F.A.T.A.L. was the deepest game of all?
Also, lol @ this thread getting moved to 'rituals, equipment, and magic items'. Seriously? They're not even trying to justify these moves anymore. Why don't we just make a forum called 'Under The Rug'?
Jumping from 2nd to 4th and I've a couple of questions, hoping someone could help me out.
How does two handed combat work? How does someone hit something with the offhand weapon?
You can only attack with both weapons at the same time if a power specifically says so.
What is the best dungeon tile starter product to buy? How do they work, does one cut them up into shapes or ...?
I'd suggest not bothering with a dungeon tile product and just investing in a vinyl mat with a grid, that you can write on with wet erase markers.
D&D minatures, whats the best way to get started? Are they like cards where you get random ones in a pack, or does every set contain the same models? Is there a quick way to build up a collection cheaply? (other than ebay obviously
Again, I'd suggest just buying some generic tokens. They are much cheaper, and do the job just fine. The specific minis look pretty, but really aren't that practical.
Well, yes. I did. How does this imply that I inferred that F.A.T.A.L. was the deepest game of all?
You're just baiting me now... Here's your response:I'm not talking about 'meaningful character creation options',
lol... Not going to justify that with a response except to say: eyeroll returned, man. Most whole-heartedly returned.
Here's your response:
...and?
You're not making sense. Please actually explain how you arrived at this. I don't see how the fact I was referring to 4.0 as a whole and not to 'character creation options' specifically has anything to do with your comment.
I don't think I'm going to get an actual explanation from you, so I'll just reiterate: to say 3.5 is the deeper game is a fair statement by any reasonable definition of the word. It's longer life aside, the game has more layers, there is more to master, and there are more mechanics interacting with one another, in more ways.
It's not a 'value statement', and this wasn't an edition war until you and Rusty made it one.
Is there a quick way to build up a collection cheaply?
Buy cheap singles online. I outfitted fellow DM's with functional collections for under $20 online (most of the miniatures I got for 15-25 cents apiece from here*), with the following variety:
1) 6 small humanoids
2) 6 small non-humanoids
3) 12 medium humanoids
4) 12 medium non-humanoids
5) 6 large humanoids
6) 6 large non-humanoids
7) 1 huge humanoid
8) 1 huge non-humanoid
* also try here, here or here
Two Weapon Opening is in PHBII, allows you to make an off-hand attack if you get a critical hit with your main weapon.
Two Weapon Flurry is in the PHB, it gives you an off-hand when you make an AoO, though it has an attack penalty for the off hand.
So you can get attacks with your off-hand without actually needing an attack that uses bothe weapons explicitly. And you can always choose to use your off-hand weapon instead of the main hand during an attack (you choose which hand whenever you make an attack roll IIRC).
this wasn't an edition war until you and Rusty made it one.
What Edition war? I thought you were trying to help the OP by suggesting a "deeper" game for him to enjoy?
Compared to F.A.T.A.L., 3rd edition has less to it. There are fewer systems and subsystems, fewer nuances, less to learn, and less to master.
Since you aren't talking about meaningful character options, F.A.T.A.L. is the deepest system you can recommend.
Plus, he doesn't have to get it mailed from outside his country.
Or were you asking something else?
Basic weapon damage isn't calculated, it's listed on the equipment chart.
Or were you asking something else?
I was asking about, when hitting someone with a sword, do you deal 1d8 or 1d8+Str modifier damage?
Anyway... thanks for the 4e advice.
I'll be staying at 4e and not reinvesting in 3 or 3.5 so soon.
Thanks
Yeah, sorry about those two. The Edition War is still far from over, and some veterans just can't let it go, no matter what thread they crap in.
I was asking about, when hitting someone with a sword, do you deal 1d8 or 1d8+Str modifier damage?
1d8+STR (+enhancement bonus, if you have a magic weapon). However, you don't add 1/2 your level to damage rolls the way you do for attack rolls.
1d8+STR (+enhancement bonus, if you have a magic weapon). However, you don't add 1/2 your level to damage rolls the way you do for attack rolls.
For most ranged weapons, substitute DEX for STR in the above. (Heavy hurled still use STR.) And there is a feat in PHB II which lets you change which stat you use for a basic melee attack.
Finally, when using a weapon-based power, the power card tells you what modifiers to add. You always add the weapon's enhancement bonus to damage, but some attacks you roll more dice, and some you don't add the stat bonus. (Typically, attacks which are more accurate, or which hit multiple targets, don't add the stat bonus.)
http://store.battleworks.net/
1d8+STR (+enhancement bonus, if you have a magic weapon). However, you don't add 1/2 your level to damage rolls the way you do for attack rolls.
Note: this is if you're you're using a Melee Basic attack with a weapon that deals 1d8 for [W] damage.
I was asking about, when hitting someone with a sword, do you deal 1d8 or 1d8+Str modifier damage?
It's listed in the power that you use. Just hitting someone with a longsword is 1d8+Str. But as a fighter you might have a power that does 2|W|+Str+Wis (W = longsword = 1d8, so 2d8+Str+Wis+enhancement). Or as a ranger you might have a power that does 1|W| with no Str mod but let's you attack twice (so 2 x (1d8+enhancement)). There's also powers that push, daze, knock down, slow, move, and plenty of other interesting things. You don't have to be a wizard to do fun stuff anymore.
A decent site to look at for D&D Minis...
http://store.battleworks.net/
Looks awesome - wish it was UK based!
You can use just about anything, like a checkered table cloth with nuts and bolts, lego castles and figures, a tiled kitchen floor and little stuffed animals, or even go digital with a big monitor(tv) and map tools.
FYI, While you do need some sort of marker and grid, but you don't need mini's. I only know one player who uses them, and while cool, it's annoying to wait while he digs though them searching for the ones he want's.
Doesn't he know which ones is he going to use beforehand? I always have mine prepared before the game starts (and with paper substitutes there's no other way).
Doesn't he know which ones is he going to use beforehand? I always have mine prepared before the game starts (and with paper substitutes there's no other way).
Usually, but we don't always do what he expects, and we can end up fighting things he didn't plan for. Like if where trying to sneak into a prison to talk to a prisoner, but the rouge rolls a 1 (he needed a 3) and get's seen, and battle with some guards ensue, he stops to search for suitable human guard minis.
I'm not complaining, but sometimes they seem more trouble then they're worth.