I guess people just don't get my point that the Ranger class shouldn't be the only class to have the two-weapon fighting powers available to them w/o having to multi-class. I understand about game balance and whatnot, what I'm saying is that the game balance should have been looked at with all melee classes to allow all melee classes to have "powers" to two-weapon fight.
It's quite difficult to balance this across all "melee classes" within the current role-oriented system. Classical two-weapon fighting, i.e. gaining additional attacks, leads directly to higher damage output. In 4E, high damage output is the province of strikers. Allowing defenders (fighter, paladin) and leaders (warlord, some clerics) to readily double their damage output at the cost of a few feats (which are far more abundant in 4E than in 3.5E) makes it easy and inexpensive for them to take over the role of striker while still playing their normal role.
The original two-weapon fighting came from fighters/warriors, not rangers. The only reason the ranger class is the only class which has two-weapon fighting is because of Drizzt's popularity as a two-weapon wielding ranger, even though he started out as a two-weapon wielding fighter/warrior of the Drow. Just seems to me that the 4th edition rules creators didn't take this into account.
Fighters were originally the kings of melee damage output, as well as theoretically the damage sponge. 4E designers needed to assign roles to various classes, and in doing so chose to make the Fighter a defender rather than a striker. I think that choice fits better with the long time philosophy of the fighter, even if it infringes on some of the previous mechanical benefits of a fighter.
Similarly, they chose to make the ranger a striker. While it's probable that Drizzt influenced that choice, it makes sense from a long term flavor standpoint as well: the ranger has always been a lightly armored, wilderness based hunter-flavored version of a fighter. It's far easier to translate that flavor into a 4E striker than a 4E defender. Once you've chosen the striker role for the ranger, classical two-weapon fighting becomes a very reasonable thing to assign to the class.
So, while I sympathize with your frustration from a flavor standpoint, I can't agree with your arguments that the system would have been better served by allowing classical two-weapon fighting to be accessible by all or most classes, nor that the designers failed to consider historical context when creating the new system. 4E discards and/or modifies a ton of long-term D&D standards, and I'm confident that in each case, the decision to change was considered, contemplated, and probably agonized over by the designers.
t~
