New Posts For Thread: Two Weapon Fighting == Multiple Attackhttp://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75882/29613083/Two_Weapon_Fighting_==_Multiple_AttackStop arguing for a single attack per turn unless you also reject the idea oftwo weapon fighting with a main and off-hand attackany combination maneuver such as flurry, whirlwind, glancing, cleave, etc.any 4th edition style maneuver where an opponentPlease quote me where i said they never a published rule. i said it was a houserule (it was). I said it was a variant (it was). I said it wasn't a core assumption of the game (it wasn't). It was wasn't part of the core version rules, just like revolvhttp://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75882/29613083/Two_Weapon_Fighting_==_Multiple_Attack?post_id=527820735#527820735Please quote me where i said they never a published rule. i said it was a houserule (it was). I said it was a variant (it was). I said it wasn't a core assumption of the game (it wasn't). It was wasn't part of the core version rules, just like revolvSun, 06 Jan 2013 22:39:37 -0600I'd like to add that it's an option in an older edition, but still not one in 5e at present. So when arguing about multiple attacks in 5e and player attitudes pertaining to them, we should probably keep your rules to 5e as well :)http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75882/29613083/Two_Weapon_Fighting_==_Multiple_Attack?post_id=527820309#527820309I'd like to add that it's an option in an older edition, but still not one in 5e at present. So when arguing about multiple attacks in 5e and player attitudes pertaining to them, we should probably keep your rules to 5e as well :)Sun, 06 Jan 2013 21:54:49 -0600@ghoststepper You wrote that WotC never had a published rule. You were wrong. It was printed in the DMG for the DM to use if he or she wanted to. It is not an unpublished houserule. Made up houserules being some of the home brewed classes, spells, mhttp://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75882/29613083/Two_Weapon_Fighting_==_Multiple_Attack?post_id=527820179#527820179@ghoststepper You wrote that WotC never had a published rule. You were wrong. It was printed in the DMG for the DM to use if he or she wanted to. It is not an unpublished houserule. Made up houserules being some of the home brewed classes, spells, mSun, 06 Jan 2013 21:41:04 -0600I believe that weapon damages need some variance to cover 2-handers and TWF'ers. Also, personally, I liked the original TWF feat, just not as a feat (I thought it worked perfectly as the default way to TWF w/o a feat).http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75882/29613083/Two_Weapon_Fighting_==_Multiple_Attack?post_id=527819917#527819917I believe that weapon damages need some variance to cover 2-handers and TWF'ers. Also, personally, I liked the original TWF feat, just not as a feat (I thought it worked perfectly as the default way to TWF w/o a feat).Sun, 06 Jan 2013 21:22:00 -0600lol. So you're proving my point my directing me specifically to where is says they were an optional houserule?? Not mention that DMG even says flat out that they can detract from the fun, a statement which is never made for critical hits, consideringhttp://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75882/29613083/Two_Weapon_Fighting_==_Multiple_Attack?post_id=527819719#527819719lol. So you're proving my point my directing me specifically to where is says they were an optional houserule?? Not mention that DMG even says flat out that they can detract from the fun, a statement which is never made for critical hits, consideringSun, 06 Jan 2013 21:04:05 -0600