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

[Charlaquin]

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

They have completely different power sets. Rogues have powers that enable sneaking and exploiting situational advantages. Rangers have powers that enable hitting fast and hard. These different powers lead to different play patterns. You can’t just merge them, you’d end up with a different set of powers that created a different play pattern and didn’t replicate the play patterns of either of the classes you’d be replacing.

 

[Minigiant]

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

4e Rogue- Damage dealing Lurker focused on the party's main Front.

4e Ranger- Damage dealing Skirmisher capable of creating secondary Front.

 

[Mind of tempest]

4e Rogue- Damage dealing Lurker focused on the party's main Front.

4e Ranger- Damage dealing Skirmisher capable of creating secondary Front.

I am not seeing inherent incompatibility there? they seem closer to different build specs than fundamentally different concepts.

what is it that makes them different truely?

 

[Zardnaar]

I could see 4E rogue and ranger folded into one. 4E ranger was a great striker meh Ranger.

 

[Minigiant]

I am not seeing inherent incompatibility there? they seem closer to different build specs than fundamentally different concepts.

what is it that makes them different truely?

4e more or less took the fighting man and split it 4 ways based on fighting style

• Archery- Ranger
• Beastmastery- Ranger
• Brawling- Fighter
• Finesse- Rogue
• Great Weapon fighting- Fighter
• Heavy Throwing- Ranger
• Light Throwing- Rogue
• Defensive Two Weapon fighting- Fighter
• Offensive Two Weapon Fighting- Ranger
• Polearms- Fighter
• Support- Warlord
• Weapon and Shield- Fighter
• Tactics- Warlord

The ranger was also a lot tougher and less vulnerable in melee and closer to a fighter in HP and AC. So much like 5e, the ranger is capable of taking heat and can fight anywhere on the battlefield without support. This goes with the flavor that rangers were trained to fight raiders and monster alone on in small squads of like minded rangers, therefore they'd need to be tough as they would not have a fighter totank for them or a cleric to heal them.

The rogue on the other hand was squishier. In 0e-4e, it was a lot squisher. This is because rogues were not supposed to be engaged in melee or firefights for long. Rogues either when in and did a swift killing blow or they need a tank to split ortake all the damage for them. Flanking was their best strategy in prolonged confrontrations.

 

[jmartkdr2]

I am not seeing inherent incompatibility there? they seem closer to different build specs than fundamentally different concepts.

what is it that makes them different truely?

4e classes are like that - they're narrower than classes in any other edition. S this is exactly the sort of distinction you get in that system. What makes them different is what people have been telling you this whole time.

For another example, many classes in other editions are spread over two or more in 4e: clerics (clerics and invokers), druids, (druids and shaman), barbarians (barbarian and warden), rangers (ranger and wilden), and possibly others. It's just how the edition makes the split.

 

[Mind of tempest]

4e classes are like that - they're narrower than classes in any other edition. S this is exactly the sort of distinction you get in that system. What makes them different is what people have been telling you this whole time.

For another example, many classes in other editions are spread over two or more in 4e: clerics (clerics and invokers), druids, (druids and shaman), barbarians (barbarian and warden), rangers (ranger and wilden), and possibly others. It's just how the edition makes the split.

4e more or less took the fighting man and split it 4 ways based on fighting style

• Archery- Ranger
• Beastmastery- Ranger
• Brawling- Fighter
• Finesse- Rogue
• Great Weapon fighting- Fighter
• Heavy Throwing- Ranger
• Light Throwing- Rogue
• Defensive Two Weapon fighting- Fighter
• Offensive Two Weapon Fighting- Ranger
• Polearms- Fighter
• Support- Warlord
• Weapon and Shield- Fighter
• Tactics- Warlord

The ranger was also a lot tougher and less vulnerable in melee and closer to a fighter in HP and AC. So much like 5e, the ranger is capable of taking heat and can fight anywhere on the battlefield without support. This goes with the flavor that rangers were trained to fight raiders and monster alone on in small squads of like minded rangers, therefore they'd need to be tough as they would not have a fighter totank for them or a cleric to heal them.

The rogue on the other hand was squishier. In 0e-4e, it was a lot squisher. This is because rogues were not supposed to be engaged in melee or firefights for long. Rogues either when in and did a swift killing blow or they need a tank to split ortake all the damage for them. Flanking was their best strategy in prolonged confrontrations.

I am still perplexed about not just merging martial ranger with rogue?
this entire thread has slowly shown me the ranger has no point, no value, that was not the intended outcome I believe.

 

[Minigiant]

I am still perplexed about not just merging martial ranger with rogue?
this entire thread has slowly shown me the ranger has no point, no value, that was not the intended outcome I believe.

You're perplexed because you are looking at the issue backwards.

The Ranger was a Fighter subclass to mimic Aragorn. Fighter was chosen as Aragorn, like the LOTR Rangers of the North, was a warrior .Aragorn could not be a fighter as the D&D fighter had no explicit skills. Even when newer edition gave fighters skills, it didn't get ourdoormanship, mundane nor fantasy.

The thief and later rogue had skills. However the thief was a terrible warrior and the rogue only slightly better.

Fighter: 90% Fighting, 10% Skills
Rogue: 10% Fighting, 90% Skills
Ranger: 75% Fighting, 75% Skills

To balance the ranger, the ranger's scope of fighting styles and suite of skills were limited. And since some skills were not fully implements, those skills became spells.

And that's why the dual wielding, beast speaking, green hooded ranger became a class, stayed a class, and wont merge with fighter nor rogue.

 

[Mind of tempest]

You're perplexed because you are looking at the issue backwards.

The Ranger was a Fighter subclass to mimic Aragorn. Fighter was chosen as Aragorn, like the LOTR Rangers of the North, was a warrior .Aragorn could not be a fighter as the D&D fighter had no explicit skills. Even when newer edition gave fighters skills, it didn't get ourdoormanship, mundane nor fantasy.

The thief and later rogue had skills. However the thief was a terrible warrior and the rogue only slightly better.

Fighter: 90% Fighting, 10% Skills
Rogue: 10% Fighting, 90% Skills
Ranger: 75% Fighting, 75% Skills

To balance the ranger, the ranger's scope of fighting styles and suite of skills were limited. And since some skills were not fully implements, those skills became spells.

And that's why the dual wielding, beast speaking, green hooded ranger became a class, stayed a class, and wont merge with fighter nor rogue.

look at this point it looks like it should just be cut up and given to higher and rogue, it has no core nothing to build from at all nor does it have something else to be its core like monk has.

ranger is just mutated Aragorn and he is not worth a class.

 

[jmartkdr2]

I am still perplexed about not just merging martial ranger with rogue?
this entire thread has slowly shown me the ranger has no point, no value, that was not the intended outcome I believe.

Within the context of 4e DnD, that makes no sense. They use totally different weapons and have totally different powers. If you merged ranger into rogue, you'd either remove all the ranger powers form the game, or add them to the rogue, making the rogue confusing and disjointed compared to the other classes in the game, since it would be trying to incorporate two distinct focuses into one class, unlike every other class in the game.