@AHF: In 'true PnP' dual wield was only available without an attack penalty to rangers wearing studded leather armour. For other classes to dual wield, they needed very high DEX scores (because reaction adjustment, determined by DEX, negated the attack penalty).
In BG1, there was no dual wield. In BG2, they adopted a dual wield which did not require DEX but proficiency slots. Fighters could access it regardless of DEX, as could paladins, rangers and some rogues (Swashbucklers and Blades). This made dual wield highly accessible, and kind of took away the appeal of the ranger class. I know the ranger gets some slots for free now, but it's nothing compared to the more exclusive access they received before.
I still believe that spellcasting and stealth and dual wield are not worth the additional XP and inferior apr. I still love the class regardless, but as it stands paladin and fighter are somewhat better.
Not arguing against true GM, just arguing for more ranger love. True GM is strongly supported by fans.
Thanks. I thought someone was suggesting that one of the BG games implemented dual wield with a dex requirement.
From this source, I am not seeing the 2e dexterity requirements:
Second Edition Two Weapon Style is the weapon proficiency needed to dual-wield in the second edition. Without this proficiency, the penalties for dual-wielding are negative four in the main hand and negative eight in the off-hand. With one rank in Two Weapon Style, the penalties are reduced to negative two and negative six. With two ranks, there is no penalty for the main hand and a negative-four penalty to the off-hand. With three ranks, the penalty in the off-hand is reduced to negative two.
I know the 1e version mitigated the dual wielding penalties with the dex bonus and I know editions after 2e had certain feats/skills that were dex dependent. It has been too many years since I played 2e for me to remember the P&P details of dual wielding (although there was a time way back when...).
@Aosaw: The extra half-attack from GM can benefit only the fighter and the archer kit, not all warriors. I want all rangers to be useful, not just the archer.
I don't think vanilla 2e had weapon styles. Player's option and Combat & Tactics (expanded 2e rulesets) did, so that's probably the reason why the link doesn't list them.
@AurenRavidel: In 2e, the ranger had exclusive free access to dual wield. As long as they were wearing studded leather or lighter, a ranger could use two weapons with no penalty to attack rolls. Though all classes could pick up two weapons, no other class received this benefit. If another character tried to dual wield, they would receive the normal penalty to attack rolls (-2/-4?) regardless of what armour they were wearing.
The attack penalty was modified by the reaction adjustment, which was determined by the DEX score. Hence, the ability to dual wield was limited by DEX even in 2nd edition. A ranger could fight with two weapons, and no penalty to hit, even if his DEX was 14. To negate this penalty, a fighter needed a DEX of 18+. Thus only very exceptional fighters could dual wield, whereas any ranger could easily.
In 3rd edition, dual wield penalties were reduced by feats rather than the DEX score.
Yes, I'm aware of the rules. My point is you said "This made dual wield highly accessible, and kind of took away the appeal of the ranger class." I'm saying accessibility didn't change. The same amount of classes which can access dual wielding in the standard rules is the same that can access it in the game.
Now you could certainly argue that the game made it more feasible for non-rangers to dual wield. The problem with dual wielding, though, is that even with the standard penalties, you're better off rolling two dice at -2/-4 than one unmodified. Dual wielding was always overrepresented in the games I played in because of the mechanical benefits (not to mention Drizzt and Ren O' the Blade). Fighters occasionally opted to go the sword/shield or 2h route, but almost every thief I've ever come across dual wielded. I don't think BG2 made it more common than it already was.
Edit: Anyone remember when Rangers could cast mage spells? Them were the days.
Cool. I think the point is they made it more viable. My argument was that the attack penalty is easier to circumvent because you can always get more proficiencies...but you don't always get more stat points.
Dual wield is definitely over-represented. It's insanely popular.
I do miss the 1e ranger. With mage spells, 2d8 HP at first level, and all sorts of other quirks. They also had the assassin in that edition.
@Silence Complete Fighter's Handbook introduced weapon styles, including group styles. You could be proficient in all swords and specialized in, say, Long Sword. Specializing in groups of weapons cost more than one specialization slot, though.
I am bumping this because I'm considering linking this thread to a new one in the Feature Requests forums since it's already at over 500 views. Some kind of fixed Specialization should be requested officially I'm thinking.
In 3rd edition, dual wield penalties were reduced by feats rather than the DEX score.
I just wanted to state, in 3e the dual-wield feats required a certain minimum dex-score to take (Dex 15 for two-weapon fighting, and dex 17 for improved two-weapon fighting(Unless you were a ranger, which you were given certain ones for free regardless of prereq's))
The extra attacks per round from Specialization and Grand Mastery benefit all warriors, not just fighters. So if you're an Archer (ranger kit), and you've got maximum slots in Longbows, you'll get those extra attacks per round.
You're also forgetting the rather significant bonus conferred by Hated Foe. +4 to hit and damage against a particular enemy type is more than a little handy.
Yes, i forsee ranger being the most powerful character in BG:ee. In melee they will be the only char being able to dualwield early without gimping ranged combat (2melee+2ranged+3dualwield). Level 3 and he is set. And ranged archer kits will dominate, plus Foes.. Minsc, the games Archer. Ranger/clerics.. scary.
@Tanthalas I havent given it much thought tbh, in BG1 it was inaccessible anyway, i guess with added EE areas it will come pretty late in the game, of questionable practical use. And in tob/soa, between improved haste, weapons which added extra attacks and HLA's granting max possible attacks, it was possible to get around bg1 grandmastery anyway. So im rather indifferent.
Comments
From this source, I am not seeing the 2e dexterity requirements:
http://www.ehow.com/info_8757906_dualwielding-penalties-dungeons-dragons.html I know the 1e version mitigated the dual wielding penalties with the dex bonus and I know editions after 2e had certain feats/skills that were dex dependent. It has been too many years since I played 2e for me to remember the P&P details of dual wielding (although there was a time way back when...).
I don't think vanilla 2e had weapon styles. Player's option and Combat & Tactics (expanded 2e rulesets) did, so that's probably the reason why the link doesn't list them.
@AurenRavidel: In 2e, the ranger had exclusive free access to dual wield. As long as they were wearing studded leather or lighter, a ranger could use two weapons with no penalty to attack rolls. Though all classes could pick up two weapons, no other class received this benefit. If another character tried to dual wield, they would receive the normal penalty to attack rolls (-2/-4?) regardless of what armour they were wearing.
The attack penalty was modified by the reaction adjustment, which was determined by the DEX score. Hence, the ability to dual wield was limited by DEX even in 2nd edition. A ranger could fight with two weapons, and no penalty to hit, even if his DEX was 14. To negate this penalty, a fighter needed a DEX of 18+. Thus only very exceptional fighters could dual wield, whereas any ranger could easily.
In 3rd edition, dual wield penalties were reduced by feats rather than the DEX score.
Yes, I'm aware of the rules. My point is you said "This made dual wield highly accessible, and kind of took away the appeal of the ranger class." I'm saying accessibility didn't change. The same amount of classes which can access dual wielding in the standard rules is the same that can access it in the game.
Now you could certainly argue that the game made it more feasible for non-rangers to dual wield. The problem with dual wielding, though, is that even with the standard penalties, you're better off rolling two dice at -2/-4 than one unmodified. Dual wielding was always overrepresented in the games I played in because of the mechanical benefits (not to mention Drizzt and Ren O' the Blade). Fighters occasionally opted to go the sword/shield or 2h route, but almost every thief I've ever come across dual wielded. I don't think BG2 made it more common than it already was.
Edit: Anyone remember when Rangers could cast mage spells? Them were the days.
Dual wield is definitely over-represented. It's insanely popular.
I do miss the 1e ranger. With mage spells, 2d8 HP at first level, and all sorts of other quirks. They also had the assassin in that edition.
@Tanthalas
I havent given it much thought tbh, in BG1 it was inaccessible anyway, i guess with added EE areas it will come pretty late in the game, of questionable practical use. And in tob/soa, between improved haste, weapons which added extra attacks and HLA's granting max possible attacks, it was possible to get around bg1 grandmastery anyway. So im rather indifferent.
Yes, the warrior classes will only reach Grand Mastery at level 9 at best. It was a non-issue in BG1 if you didn't remove the exp cap.