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

[Minigiant]

hence my question do we need ranger to exist at all or is it just blind tradition at this point?

Yes and No.

The Ranger, via it's various inspirations, displays aspects that the community don't want on other classes as a base option and acts as a nexus for them. The tradition is the act of keeping the other class to their core identities and not spending any power on ranger stuff.

The question was with regard to an explicitly non-magical set of wilderness-themed abilities. I'm saying that tying those to specific character classes, rather than a separate system which characters of any class can take, has a conceptual awkwardness to it. The same way that fighters aren't the only ones capable of engaging in melee combat, it can be hard to justify why learning certain non-magical abilities is tied to a particular character class. That's why I mentioned thieves, since I recall a lot of people pointing to the idea that no one besides them could detect traps, hide in shadows, etc. as something that they had a hard time with

It was never about gating features away from other classes.

Think of it this way.
The fighter has access to every combat style. The ranger has access to some combat styles.

The fighter has access to so wilderness stuff. The ranger has access to all wilderness stuff.

 

[Ralif Redhammer]

On page 70, between "Meleeing an Opponent Spellcaster" and "Breaking Off From Melee." I'm 99% sure that I didn't discover those rules until the early 2010s... In my defense, I was a kid when I first picked the 1e DMG. The sheer wall of disorganized rules and options wasn't always conducive to digesting information. In hindsight, this is part of the enduring charm of the 1e DMG, that it's this hodgepodge treasure trove of densely packed and disorganized information. But I think most of my knowledge on rules and running the game at the time was inherited from the red box.

It's also in the DMG ('79).

Additionally, one thing I just noticed about the 1e ranger was that at 10th level "rangers are able to employ non-written magic items which pertain to clairaudience, clairvoyance, ESP, and telepathy." Clearly derived from Aragorn and the Palantir.

 

[auburn2]

Dragon #68 (1982) has an article Two-Fisted Fighter which expands on the 1e rules for what we now call dual weilding...
"Weapons usable in primary hand: battle axe, hand axe, club, dagger, horseman’s flail, hammer, footman’s mace, horseman’s mace, footman’s pick, horseman’s pick, scimitar, broadsword, longsword, shortsword.
Usable in secondary hand: hand axe, dagger, hammer, horseman’s mace, horseman’s pick, shortsword."

This supports what i said - before Drizzt TWF was associated more with Fighters than with Rangers.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

This supports what i said - before Drizzt TWF was associated more with Fighters than with Rangers.

I realize that the title of the article is confusing, but it applies to all classes.

In 1e, TWF was for all the classes. Even, um, MUs.

 

[auburn2]

I realize that the title of the article is confusing, but it applies to all classes.

In 1e, TWF was for all the classes. Even, um, MUs.

All classes except Clerics. I mentioned that earlier.

RAW TWF in 1E is a specific and limited type of TWF using a dagger or hand axe only in the offhand, which is fundamentally different than the drow and latter Ranger ability using any weapons that I am focusing on and calling TWF in this thread (and that the referneced article in Dragon was about).

1E Clerics could not use even the limited 1E TWF because they could not use hand axes or daggers. Even multi-class clerics still could not use these weapons (and thus could not TWF). MUs could though, you are right about that.

Also quoting your other thread:

Let's get this out of the way- for purposes of this essay, the strong Drizzt theory (that the 2e Ranger dual wields because of Drizzt, so people can play their own Drizzt) is being ignored.

I don't think this is an accurate portrayal of the "strong theory" or at least my theory. I don't think it was so people could play their own Drizzt. I think TWF was associated with the Ranger because of Drizzt, but not so they could play him, but rather because he did it.

I think it is less purposeful than you state, similar to your "-10hp" discussion on another thread, it was somehting that was there that people misunderstood and it became cannon. Drizzt was a Ranger and did TWF with normal weapons and because of this people associated it with the Ranger class (instead of associating it with his dark elf heritage which was the real reason he did it).

 

[Zardnaar]

All classes except Clerics. I mentioned that earlier.

RAW TWF in 1E is a specific and limited type of TWF using a dagger or hand axe only in the offhand, which is fundamentally different than the drow and latter Ranger ability using any weapons that I am focusing on and calling TWF in this thread (and that the referneced article in Dragon was about).

1E Clerics could not use even the limited 1E TWF because they could not use hand axes or daggers. Even multi-class clerics still could not use these weapons (and thus could not TWF). MUs could though, you are right about that.

Also quoting your other thread:


I don't think this is an accurate portrayal of the "strong theory" or at least my theory. I don't think it was so people could play their own Drizzt. I think TWF was associated with the Ranger because of Drizzt, but not so they could play him, but rather because he did it.

I think it is less purposeful than you state, similar to your "-10hp" discussion on another thread, it was somehting that was there that people misunderstood and it became cannon. Drizzt was a Ranger and did TWF with normal weapons and because of this people associated it with the Ranger class (instead of associating it with his dark elf heritage which was the real reason he did it).

I think MC fighter/clerics in 1E could use whatever weapons they like.

They could not in 2E.

 

[loverdrive]

Hm. When I was designing Ranger class for Swords under the Sun, I didn't even think of Aragorn or Drizzt. Or dual-wielding.

For me, the defining characteristics of rangers are:
a) Archery
b) Strong ties to nature
c) Distaste for the comforts of civilization

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

All classes except Clerics. I mentioned that earlier.

It does not restrict it by class.

Which meant that when rules allowed Clerics to use weapons through rules (like MC) or through worship of a particular deity (from, say Deditors and Demigods or Greyhawk) they could as well.
In addition: 1 I was talking about the article, which explicitly included weapons all clerics could use (so your point makes no sense); and
2. I was also responding to your “fighters” comment.

Are you discussing this, or just trying to argue?

 

[Jack Daniel]

I think MC fighter/clerics in 1E could use whatever weapons they like.

They could not in 2E.

This is correct.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

I think it is less purposeful than you state, similar to your "-10hp" discussion on another thread, it was somehting that was there that people misunderstood and it became cannon. Drizzt was a Ranger and did TWF with normal weapons and because of this people associated it with the Ranger class (instead of associating it with his dark elf heritage which was the real reason he did it).

As I point out in the other thread, the Ranger in 2e is the second dex~based official martial class in AD&D.
The first is the Kensai (1985).
Both have a striking similarity- they TWF without penalty as a class feature.

And? Both were designed by Zeb Cook.