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

[Charlaquin]

both are martial strikers so it seems odd to have two when you could have one instead.

Why? Each satisfies the combat role by way of the power source in meaningfully different ways. There’s no reason they can’t or shouldn’t coexist.

One of the stated design goals of 4e was to do away with needless grid-filling. If there’s design space for more than one martial striker, they should be allowed to coexist. If there isn’t design space for a martial controller, one shouldn’t be forced into the game. That’s 4e design philosophy at work.

also, I am suggesting that this class would replace rogue and ranger thus it would not be seen as a separate class but the only one.

Right, but I’m saying any such class you would make would be different enough from both the ranger and the rogue as to not be a suitable replacement for either.

 

[Mind of tempest]

Why? Each satisfies the combat role by way of the power source in meaningfully different ways. There’s no reason they can’t or shouldn’t coexist.

One of the stated design goals of 4e was to do away with needless grid-filling. If there’s design space for more than one martial striker, they should be allowed to coexist. If there isn’t design space for a martial controller, one shouldn’t be forced into the game. That’s 4e design philosophy at work.


Right, but I’m saying any such class you would make would be different enough from both the ranger and the rogue as to not be a suitable replacement for either.

it was an edition known for cut scared cows and at this point, the ranger is looking like a subclass so why not merge it with something else?

how would it be unsuitable what is the great problem between merging martial rogue with a martial ranger?

 

[Charlaquin]

it was an edition known for cut scared cows and at this point, the ranger is looking like a subclass so why not merge it with something else?

The ranger doesn’t look like a subclass in 4e, that’s the point. It has a distinct mechanical identity that no other class replicates, there’s no reason to get rid of it.

how would it be unsuitable what is the great problem between merging martial rogue with a martial ranger?

Because, again, they are mechanically distinct expressions of their role and power source. Merging them would be removing two excellent classes and replacing them with one, which wouldn’t even do what either of them could do separately. There wouldn’t be any benefit to doing that whatsoever.

 

[Minigiant]

it was an edition known for cut scared cows and at this point, the ranger is looking like a subclass so why not merge it with something else?

Actually the ranger of 4e encompassed 4 different combat styles. If anything, the 4e rogue would have been a ranger subclass.

 

[Scott Christian]

In very basic terms, 4e classes are about what you do rather than who you are.

As someone who played a lot of 4e, this is very well said. If you are ever looking for a simple explanation between the difference between 4e and 5e, this definitely summarizes the character building process (which is a pillar of D&D). We done @Charlaquin .

 

[Marc_C]

That was funny and accurate. No one as played a Ranger in my D&D games since 2e.

 

[Mind of tempest]

The ranger doesn’t look like a subclass in 4e, that’s the point. It has a distinct mechanical identity that no other class replicates, there’s no reason to get rid of it.

Because, again, they are mechanically distinct expressions of their role and power source. Merging them would be removing two excellent classes and replacing them with one, which wouldn’t even do what either of them could do separately. There wouldn’t be any benefit to doing that whatsoever.

okay what is it that they do differently can you define it?

 

[Charlaquin]

okay what is it that they do differently can you define it?

Quite a lot. Primarily, the rogue uses light blades (or maces if they take the Ruthless Ruffian tactic) and focuses on stealth and shift abilities to gain combat advantage so they can deal extra damage via Sneak Attack, whereas the ranger uses a bow and/or two one-handed weapons and focus on singling out their Hunter’s Quarry, either trying to remain closer to the target than any of their allies, repeatedly charging it, or harrying it with their animal companion, depending on what Fighting Style they chose. But that’s just the very basics, a lot of other differences come from their different selections of powers, which I’m not going to sit here and list. There’s a wiki if you want to look them all up yourself.

 

[Voadam]

okay what is it that they do differently can you define it?

4e rogues are sneaky guys who exploit situational advantages to do high damage with lighter weapons.

4e rangers are light skirmishers who generally hit fast and hard.

 

[Mind of tempest]

4e rogues are sneaky guys who exploit situational advantages to do high damage with lighter weapons.

4e rangers are light skirmishers who generally hit fast and hard.

not seeing a lot of incompatibilities there, do you have a stronger division?