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

[auburn2]

I don't think Drizzt was the reason we have dual weapon rangers. As mentioned by Bacon Bits, the ranger originally was also meant to capture mountain men, Dacy Crockett, and indigenous native american archetypes as well (setting aside the cultural appropriation aspect, this was the early 80s after all). And those archetypes had tomahawk and knife pairing as a common style of melee combat. Looking at the timelines of when we saw dual weapon fighting with rangers in the 1e books, and knowing the appendix N as you will for rangers, it's eems clear dual weapons predates Drizzt

Dual wielding as we are talking about does not predate Drizzt.

Dual wielding the tomahawk (hand axe) and knife (dagger) in the offhand do predate Drizzt and they are available in 1E for every character class except Cleric (who could not wield daggers or axes). They are not Ranger specific and were most often depicted on thieves and fighters in both the novels and sourcebooks. This is not dual wielding as I am speaking of it, we are talking about 2 of any one handed weapons (two swords, two maces, a sword and a hammer), which started for Rangers in 2E.

No class, including Rangers, could dual wield anything other than hand axes and daggers in the offhand. This was the case up until 2E and as noted above Drizzt, dual wielding scimitars, was published in a 1E sourcebook.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Dual wielding as we are talking about does not predate Drizzt.

Dual wielding the tomahawk (hand axe) and knife (dagger) in the offhand do predate Drizzt and they are available in 1E for every character class except Cleric (who could not wield daggers or axes). They are not Ranger specific and were most often depicted on thieves and fighters in both the novels and sourcebooks. This is not dual wielding as I am speaking of it, we are talking about 2 of any one handed weapons (two swords, two maces, a sword and a hammer), which started for Rangers in 2E.

No class, including Rangers, could dual wield anything other than hand axes and daggers in the offhand. This was the case up until 2E and as noted above Drizzt, dual wielding scimitars, was published in a 1E sourcebook.

You're forgetting that in the drow write up in D1-3 (over 15 years before Drizzt ever appeared in books), it describes them as being able to attack equally with either or both hands (meaning, they didn't suffer the two weapon penalties as written in the DMG). Thus, dual wielding drow existed long before Drizzt was a word on a page.

*edit. Also, the UA gave drow that feature as well. So I think it's clear that Drizzt did not cause the 2 weapon ranger to be a thing. A drow ranger in 1e before Drizzt ever showed up could do exactly that.

From UA:
Dark elves do not gain the combat bonuses of the surface elves with regard to sword and bow, but may fight with two weapons without penalty, provided each weapon may be easily wielded in one hand

 

[Krachek]

Indeed the Ranger is thorn between two conflicting identity.

The Terrain identity : Tracking, survival, beast master. usually natural environment, but the horizon walker put the concept a step further. Beast master, gloom, horizon walker.

The favored enemy identity. Use of magic or supernatural abilties to fight selected type of ennemies. Hunter, Monster slayer.

It’s where the conflict begin, if you combat orc, or giant the terrain identity can match, but if you combat Aberration, undead, Fiend, the terrain identity can be without purpose.

Depending on Terrain or Enemy identity weapons or armors need could change drastically.
So to associating Ranger with a specific type of weapon-armor is not the best idea.

Having undead and fiend a possible favored enemy is cool, but to wanting to be better to fight them than a paladin is a little too much?

 

[auburn2]

You're forgetting that in the drow write up in D1-3 (over 15 years before Drizzt ever appeared in books), it describes them as being able to attack equally with either or both hands (meaning, they didn't suffer the two weapon penalties as written in the DMG). Thus, dual wielding drow existed long before Drizzt was a word on a page.

*edit. Also, the UA gave drow that feature as well. So I think it's clear that Drizzt did not cause the 2 weapon ranger to be a thing. A drow ranger in 1e before Drizzt ever showed up could do exactly that.

From UA:
Dark elves do not gain the combat bonuses of the surface elves with regard to sword and bow, but may fight with two weapons without penalty, provided each weapon may be easily wielded in one hand

Yes, dark elves, not Rangers.

That is the whole point of my argument - Drizzt dual wielded because he was a Drow, like every other Drow of any class. Not because he was a Ranger, yet it was associated with the Ranger when 2E was written (IMO because of Drizzt) and forever ever after has been a Ranger and not a Drow ability. Drizzt introduced modern TWF to the Ranger class in D&D pop culture and IMO that is why we have the dual wielding Ranger archetype today.

There was no 1E Drow Ranger before Drizzt (or perhaps since).

 

[Minigiant]

I think part of the problem is that such a thing wouldn't necessarily fit in as part of the ranger class, which would sort of defeat the purpose.

How so. Core gimmicks and memes of theranger is healing with plants, talking to animals, and identfying plants,fungi, weather, rocks, and terrain.

D&D makes these into spells instead of skills or crafts.

That is to say, if you invented a system whereby non-magical zoology/herbalism/botany/geology/meteorology could be used for various effects, you'd need to make it an offshoot of something like a skill system, non-weapon proficiencies, a feat tree, etc. That's because it's intuitively understood that a non-magical discipline can be theoretically studied and learned by anyone, ranger or not. If you went ahead and baked it into the ranger class anyway, I think a lot of people would find that conceptually unsatisfying, similar to how a lot of people saw the abilities that thieves had and asked "so wait, does this mean my fighter can't detect traps or hide in shadows at all?"

How is that the problem?
Only rangers, druids,and sometimes bards can do these things as is. D&D just has them be druid spells and gives them to rangers and bards. They were the only ones with the spells to track, heal, fade, and talk to plants, rocks, animals, or nature spirits

That's the whole thing, D&D designers do not want to rewrite Cure Wounds, Speak with Animals, Speak with Plants, Commun with Nature etc all over again as non-spell feats, skill, or whatever. It's the whole "I don't want to design a whole potioncraft system for nonmagical healers and alchemists" problem.

And then if you make such a system stand apart from class-based mechanics, you're right back to square one with regard to not making it about the ranger specifically (though this can be ameliorated if you give them freebies with regard to that system, such as skill bonuses, bonus feats, etc.).

Again how so. The idea behind the ranger is that they were a fighter who sacrificed martial flexiblity for these noncombat aspects and focus on a combat style/target.

Other classes would have to spend their feats or subclass/kit to get it whereas rangers have their feats or subclass/kit freed up.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

1. Many fans crave a non-spellcasting ranger but don't want to put the work into creating a new herbology/botany/zoology/geology/meteorology system.

I don't think it's a case of "not wanting to put in the work". I think it's a case of not knowing where to start. I'm certain I wouldn't know how to make such a system - especially with a "must be fun" requirement.

If you are convinced such a system is possible, you put in the work.

1. A lot of it is rehashing aspects that exist in other classes much earlier.

You mentioned alchemists earlier. The artificer rehashes existing systems and casts spells, and yet it still manages to not attract the angst that the ranger does. Indeed the Battlesmith Artificer is very very similar to a beastmaster ranger in everything but fluff.

 

[Minigiant]

I don't think it's a case of "not wanting to put in the work". I think it's a case of not knowing where to start. I'm certain I wouldn't know how to make such a system - especially with a "must be fun" requirement.

If you are convinced such a system is possible, you put in the work.

I've done it. I've created 2 nonspell ranger subsystems as well as dozens of ranger spells. That's why I know it takes work and page space.

Giving a fighter dual wilding r archery plus some

You mentioned alchemists earlier. The artificer rehashes existing systems and casts spells, and yet it still manages to not attract the angst that the ranger does. Indeed the Battlesmith Artificer is very very similar to a beastmaster ranger in everything but fluff.

It avoids this because alcemists lack anadventuring history and fewer iconic heroes as inspiration. ThePaladin had the same angst but it was dulls severely by the Divine Smite class feature and the decrease skill focus.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

I've done it. I've created 2 nonspell ranger subsystems as well as dozens of ranger spells. That's why I know it takes work and page space./

Lets see then. Are they actually FUN?

It avoids this because alcemists lack anadventuring history and fewer iconic heroes as inspiration.

Rubbish. You just like different media to me. Daedalus, The Doctor, MacGyver, some versions of Merlin, all fit the alchemist/artificer mould. And those are without having to think about it. Entrapta (She-Ra), Iron Man, Rocket Racoon, Spock.

As for rangers, I can think of Aragorn, Dar the Beastmaster, Jon Snow and, err, the Lone Ranger. Buzz Lightyear.

 

[Minigiant]

Lets see then. Are they actually FUN

They are sadly both outdated to work with older editions and on paper in their final formd. My 5e version is in the play testing phase.

I actually don't mind rangers using spells and have created many ranger spells and updated so old ones. Some of them are on Enworld like beastmaster's mark.

My players loved both the non-magical systems and the homebrew spells as they were made for the ranger and expanded ranger fighting styles to great weapons, shields, lances, and throwing weapons.

Rubbish. You just like different media to me. Daedalus, The Doctor, MacGyver, some versions of Merlin, all fit the alchemist/artificer mould. And those are without having to think about it.

As for rangers, I can think of Aragorn, Dar the Beastmaster, Jon Snow and, err, the Lone Ranger.

Most of those alchemists are not in Medieval, Renaissance, or Classical Era fantasy.

Oddly enough, a ranger using my 3rd edition non-magical system could create and maintain a pair of wax and wood wings for 2 craft slots. Double as many if in a forest. 1 slot if their favored terrain is forest.

 

[Li Shenron]

I am all in support for Aragorn to still be the reference archetype behind the Ranger class.

Because I found that all the other ideas across editions only diminished the identity of the class and just made it less interesting and inspiring to play: "woodsman", "scout", "tracker", "hunter"... seriously? Those are mundane jobs that I would expect half the commoner in a fantasy world to be able to do reasonably well. "Archer" and "two-weapon fighter" are ever worse, these are simply weapon styles choices.

As for spellcasting, I still think it's an important part of the Ranger which makes it feel special and unique, as long as it is intended to be Ranger magic and not reduced to "half-druid", which is degrading, unnecessary (for a "half-druid" make a multiclass character with half their levels in Druid) and leads to nonsense narrative consequences such as all Rangers must worship nature or have a patron deity because they do "divine magic".

Let's not get me started on the whole "pet" discussion since I generally reject the ideas of pets in the game. I'll just point out that there is a huge difference between "pets" and the original "followers", even if the latter explicitly included some creatures which could serve as mount.

It might sound limiting to have a class based on a single literary character, but it's not entirely true, as Aragorn was only one of the Rangers. Even within the context of Tolkien's books, I am sure someone can find inspiration for more Ranger abilities that Aragorn didn't have. And spellcasting can easily provide more ideas even beyond that. The important thing to create a strong class identity, is to avoid the trap of always thinking "but this should also be a Fighter's ability because it's combat-related" or (VERY common by WotC) "but this should also be a Wizard's spell because it's magic".