D&D 5E The Dual Wielding Ranger: How Aragorn, Drizzt, and Dual-Wielding Led to the Ranger's Loss of Identity

[Snarf Zagyg]

@Don Durito @auburn2

So as I see it, there are two theories.

There is the strong (Auburn) theory. This is something akin to the "2e Ranger with TWF because of Drizzt." For the many reasons I have already laid out ... this didn't happen. Here's another quote from another Cook in the kitchen, Monte Cook.
Monte: I looked into that. From what I understand, the two-weapon ranger came first, as a niche for the ranger. Bob Salvatore seized on that idea and ran with it. This would have been right around the time Zeb was finishing up 2nd Edition, and thus the rest is history.

I'd actually take that with a grain of salt- I've seen no evidence that Salvatore was provided the early 2e information despite what is written here, and I think Cook is likely referring to the idea that Salvatore went more heavily into the TWF after the new direction was unveiled. Nevertheless, for multiple reasons the "strong theory" doesn't work out.

The second theory, we will call it the weak (Durito) theory is more of a cosmic unconsciousness.
Give you an example; show you what I mean: suppose you're thinkin' about a ranger dual wielding. Suddenly someone'll say, like, dual wielding, or ranger, or Drizzt is a dual wielding ranger out of the blue, no explanation. No point in lookin' for one, either. It's all part of a cosmic unconciousness.

This is the idea that maybe Zeb was wandering around one day, and someone was reading the Crystal Shard, and exclaimed, "Ooooo.... the Drizzt, who is a two-weapon wielding ranger .... is so dreamy!" And ol' Zeb didn't think of it at the time, but it lodged in his head, and later on ... he put it in 2e without thinking about it.


Which, you know, sure? But there is an alternate possibility- maybe there is a fully rational explanation for why that particular person put that particular ability in? Which I will be posting on, except, you know, weekend. So I apologize, but I will put up something either later today or maybe Monday.

 

[Minigiant]

I wonder whether part of the fuzziness of the ranger's role has to do with society's changing attitudes toward wilderness.

It's like wolves. In the books that I grew up reading (The Hobbit, Narnia, The Wolves of Willoughby Chase, probably others), wolves are evil and dangerous. Then, as wolves disappeared from civilized habitats, they became noble intelligent creatures, as portrayed in The Wheel of Time and the Farseer series.

I think a similar change in attitude is what has fueled at least some of the evolution of the ranger – from civilization's guardian against the perils of the surrounding wilds to nature's protector against encroaching civilization – and is also why people disagree on the ranger's role. Borderman? Hunter? Nature's protector? Do we need protecting from the monsters in the woods, or are we the monsters threatening the woods?

(Also, Gord the Rogue used two weapons, but I don't recall thieves/rogues ever being specifically linked to dual-wielding. Not sure how that relates to the present discussion, but I thought I'd throw it out there.)

It's less society's changing attitudes to rangers and more that every society has a different role for the ranger jobs.

A ranger who works for the king has a different job from one who serves a tribal chief, a fuedal lord, a fey queen, an urban metropolis, a government military, or an evil cabal.

 

[Minigiant]

Part of me thinks the dual wielding became a ranger thing do to "filling boxes". Same with archery.

Basically,the fighter was traditionally see as a weapon and shield, two handed weapon, or bow guy. The barbarian was pushed in the same way. The paladin was given similar imagery sans archery.

So when Drizzt came out, fans began to think "yeah that looks right. Rangers wouldn't wield shields and great axes in the forest". Ah yes. The Forest preference.

Since rangers were all forest forest forest forest forest forest forest forest forest forest forest forest forest forest forest forest forest forest forest in the minds of many, rangers basically became wood elf the class. Someone had to get dual wielding and rangers already looked cool doing it so that is what they got.

Couldn't have another Weapon and Shield or Great Weapon guy. So Rangers became bound to Dual Wielding and Archery.

 

[jmartkdr2]

Having slept on it, I'm inclined to change my opinion:

Because despite everything, there is a core to the ranger's identity that's been present since the totally-not-Aragorn class first appeared: rangers are, and have always been, good at 'wilderness stuff.'

But DnD doesn't currently have good rules for 'wilderness stuff,' so there's no good way to express the ranger's expertise. There's no mechanic that does a good job interacting with the wilderness rules, because there aren't really wilderness rules to interact with.

So the designers cast about for some other mechanic to give the ranger a cool thing to do: dual-wielding, pets, spells, hunter's mark, etc. But all of these fall outside the core identity of the concept, so they're never broadly accepted.

Of course, DnD could have good wilderness rules, but they don't so the ranger is left is an odd mechanical limbo, which makes it easier to miss the core identity it does have.

 

[auburn2]

Monte: I looked into that. From what I understand, the two-weapon ranger came first, as a niche for the ranger. Bob Salvatore seized on that idea and ran with it. This would have been right around the time Zeb was finishing up 2nd Edition, and thus the rest is history.

Ok. I will buy this, but it is a niche that came about exactly the same time as the most famous Ranger in D&D (and arguably fantasy history) was taking the world by storm. I get that it is a niche ability and purposely in the book, but it is not one that makes a lot of sense without Drizzt, because no other example of inspiration for a Ranger does this. Aragorn doesn't do it. The only other Ranger in D&D novels at the time is Riverwind, a distant, distant second in popularity to Drizzt and he does not do it. The French origins of the word "Ranger" are based on a mounted police character where horsemanship would make more sense as a niche ability (more akin to Texas Rangers). Further in the entire D&D lore, no other character of any class that I know of who was puiblished in a rulebook by 1988 dual wields swords except for Drizzt, and he happens to bee a Ranger.

Why dual wielding if not Drizzt? Not why a niche ability, which I get, but why this specific niche ability, where did this idea come from?

Further regardless of the designers, the fanboys certainly associated it with Ranger's because of Drizzt (who was more popular than D&D itself). I actually talked about this with friends during the timeframe. Rangers dual wield swords - look at Drizzt.

Salvatore is actually credited as an author in FR6 Hall of Heroes which is the first 2E suplement, published in 1989, so he absolutely was involved with 2E early in development.

 

[auburn2]

Someone had to get dual wielding and rangers already looked cool doing it so that is what they got.

Excepts Thieves were using daggers offhand prolificly in D&D writings. As such 2E Rogues would make more sense to be the "someone".

 

[Minigiant]

Excepts Thieves were using daggers offhand prolificly in D&D writings. As such 2E Rogues would make more sense to be the "someone".

But thieves, especially in 2e, were not warriors.

So the Dual Wielding Warrior had to go somewhere and the Ranger was chosen.

 

[Bacon Bits]

Well now rangers are seen as

1. Protecting civilization from nature
2. Protecting nature from civilization
3. Protecting natural civilization from urban or rural civilization
4. Protecting fey civilization from nonfey civilization
5. Protecting non fey civilization from fey
6. Protecting civilization from barbarians
7. Protecting barbarians from civilization
8. Protecting the king's or lords land
9. Protecting themselves and their family.
10. Protection civilization from demons
11. Protection civilization from lone monsters
12. Everything in between

Yup, and on top of that, from a mechanical perspective they have to fit into some design space between the other classes.

So, be a wilderness themed character, but not like Barbarian or Druid.
Be a lightly armed warrior, but not like Fighter, Barbarian, Monk or Rogue.
Be a hybrid caster, but not like Bard, Druid, Warlock or Paladin.
Be more skill focused, but not like Rogue or Bard.
Be pet focused like 3e Ranger, but also not at all pet focused like 1e Ranger.
Be two weapon focused like 2e Ranger, but also not too much because 5e TWF sucks it you get Extra Attack.
Be focused on archery, but also don't do that exclusively.
Be a hybrid Fighter/Rogue/Druid, but not like Bard, and also do it in a game with a la carte multicasting.

And, remember, you need to be able to emulate Drizzt, Aragorn, Davy Crockett, Daniel Boone, Geralt of Rivia, Wyatt Earp, Samuel Walker, Jeremiah Johnson, Legolas, WoW Rangers, Robin Hood, Nathaniel "Hawkeye" Bumppo, Wild Bill Hickok, etc.

And all that is on top of the class having some of the strongest historic roots in colonialism, so you have to dodge the "person who would be a Barbarian if they didn't come from a 'civilized' culture" implications. Also, nobody really wants to play a trapper or a hunter or a wilderness scout anymore. Contemporary culture is very urban.

 

[Sword of Spirit]

Exactly. Clerics for most of 1st to 3rd edition were modelled off Templar Knights of all things -but if you asked a player to create a "templar knight" style character now they would go for a paladin.

According to the PHBs, yes. But everywhere else: supplements, NPCs, etc, clerics were generic and broadly inclusive priests. It's frankly baffling that they were still making that claim in the 3e PHB, which they had been ignoring ever since they were claiming it back in 1e. It's like whenever they wrote a new PHB they went back and read the old ones and discovered clerics are "supposed to be" warrior-knight-priests instead of any-kind-of priest and felt that they had to write the same thing out of some strange sense of obligation, so they could then pretend they had never written it and go back to business as usual.

Fortunately, the way they always actually did it--cleric as priest--is far superior to the way the PHBs presented it.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

But DnD doesn't currently have good rules for 'wilderness stuff,' so there's no good way to express the ranger's expertise. There's no mechanic that does a good job interacting with the wilderness rules, because there aren't really wilderness rules to interact with.

This argument make it like the Artisan class (3rd edition). A character who focuses on skills. But D&D isn't about handicrafts, it's about killing monsters, so classes that aren't all about killing monsters are "NPC classes" and sit on the sidelines.

Personally, I don't see any way to do "wilderness stuff" that is actually fun to play, any more than you can make basket weaving fun to play.